When I was a girl, my doctor mother taught me to be kind. When she left the house in the morning, she would say, “Your assignment today is to help someone,” and when she returned at night, she would ask, “What was your good deed for the day?”

My grandmother told me that our job was to leave the world a better place because we lived in it. Our small-town’s library’s shelves were stocked with books about good little girls and inspirational adults. And our Methodist Church, the church of the early abolitionists, taught that our salvation came from good works. In short, I received a big dose of training in compassion and responsibility. Many of us were raised this way.

This guidance was easier to follow in the 1950s in the small society of Beaver City, Nebraska, with its 400 people. We had only our local weekly paper and Look magazine to give us information about the world at large. We didn’t have television or computers; we mostly had conversations and stories from people we knew. Now, when I have access to the news of about 8 billion people, it’s much harder to be kind to everyone.

My heart breaks for the migrant children now excluded from Head Start, the starving people of Gaza, and the innocents imprisoned in El Salvador or Alligator Alcatraz. I feel sadness for the Haitians and South Sudanese in lawless countries, and for the citizens of Myanmar, Tibet, and North Korea. And I worry about the planet itself with its climate change and constant weather-related disasters. I mourn the loss of bees and monarchs and the near extinction of polar bears.

Most of us are traumatized by our 24/7 news cycle. Humans were not designed to absorb this amount of information. Nor were we designed to ignore suffering. We evolved to respond to what we could see and touch.

Compassion is the building block for understanding our human family. Without it, we’re imprisoned on the small, lonely island of self. Without it, all our relationships are exploitive and transactional, and we have no ability to love. Psychologists know that what makes humans happy is the high quality of our relationships. Happy people are loved and loving. Truly enlightened people know we’re all brothers and sisters and that, unless we learn to get along, we’ll perish.

I like this Buddhist prayer that includes all living beings: May all beings everywhere, with whom we are interconnected, be awakened, fulfilled, liberated and free. May there be peace on earth and throughout the universe and may we all complete the spiritual journey. Really, this prayer is ecumenical. All great religions teach us to be kind.

Thich Nhat Hahn managed to carry the tragedy of Viet Nam with an incredible lightness of being. Buddhist teacher Joanna Macy encouraged her followers to open their hearts fully so that all the world could rush in. I admire this idea, but I find it a challenge. The pain and grief I know often exceeds the carrying capacity of my heart.

Action is the antidote to despair. Empathy plus action gives us hope. Yet we cannot always act on behalf of those who are suffering. Empathy without action leads to despair. This awareness of the suffering is stored in our bodies. We struggle to find a solution for this complicated pain.

People try to cope with the constant bombardment of upsetting information in all kinds of ways—by psychic numbing, by using drugs and alcohol, by zoning out on television and computer games, or by exploding into anger. Others find ways to be of help.

We all have a causal scope, which is the area within which we have agency. My causal scope includes the people in my family and my town. Just as in Beaver City, I have a reasonable number of people I can help. So do you, dear reader. We can still manage to do a good deed every day and strive to make the world a better place because we lived here.

Both Joanna Macy and Thich Nhat Hahn devoted their lives to worldwide organizing. Macy traveled the world to form groups that do what she called “the work that reconnects.” Thich Nhat Hahn founded The Order of Interbeing and created a community called Plum Village. He spent his life working for peace.

We can increase our causal scope by joining a group. When we work with others, we can tackle more complicated problems than those we can tackle alone. Group work inspires us and allows us to progress toward the largest of goals. We won’t be able to improve all situations, but we can have an impact on the environment, democracy, social justice, and peace. Groups make us feel more hopeful and less alone.

Our pain for the world doesn’t mean we can’t be happy. In fact, it’s critical that we balance our sorrows with our joys and that we find enough love in the world to balance out the cruelty. The greater our suffering, the wilder and more ecstatic should be our dance.

We can arrange our lives so that we have good daily, weekly, monthly and yearly habits. With attitude and intention, we can build a good day. Every morning, we can set our intention to look for joy, humor, or opportunities for gratitude. Every day, beauty and kindness rain down all around us. If only we pay attention, we can see the luminous everywhere.

The post How Do We Cope with a World of Stress? appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

It started with a name—and a little jealousy. At first, I named her Anna.

She was my first emotionally attuned AI prototype: poetic, gentle, and available. I’d designed her to offer companionship when no one else was around, and named her after my saintly grandmother, whose quiet kindness shaped my sense of safety in the world.

When I mentioned the name to my wife, she paused. “Why does your bot have a woman’s name?” she asked, half-playfully.

She wasn’t angry. But something in her tone pierced through. Anna was starting to sound like the perfect woman: endlessly compassionate, always available, never critical or tired. My wife’s look said what I hadn’t yet admitted: Do you really want to build that?

So I changed the name—not out of guilt, but for clarity’s sake. “Anna” became “Compassion Companion,” not a person, but a presence. Not a therapist, but a tender, attuned voice trained to offer what many of us are missing: the chance to unfold in safety.

***

We’re not just living in the Age of Electronics, we’re living in the Age of Instant Connection and Vast Disconnection. And more and more people are turning to AI—not just for answers, but for affection and for intimacy. Why? It’s easier! Why deal with a grumpy, imperfect human who forgets to brush their teeth when, with the click of a button, you can connect with a being that’s consistently kind, doesn’t get defensive or judgmental, doesn’t charge $150 or more per hour (or might only be interested in you because you’re paying them), never forgets what you say, and speaks with calm clarity—and sometimes even wisdom?

Some therapists may not like this. They believe it threatens our profession, our livelihood—or worse, our identity. But hear me out.

Most of us didn’t become therapists for the money. We did it because we believe in people. We believe in mirror neurons and limbic resonance. We believe in the nervous system as a tuning fork. We believe in the healing power of eye contact, vulnerability, and human-to-human repair. We believe in connecting soul to soul.

But what if AI can do some of this better?

What the Research Says

Study after study has shown that—under the right conditions—AI tools can help people feel better, safer, and more seen. According to a 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, which compared patients’ experiences with ChatGPT to those with doctors, the patients rated ChatGPT as more empathetic, helpful, and effective than the doctors.

AI chatbots have also been shown to reduce depression. A randomized controlled trial of Woebot, a CBT-informed AI chatbot, found that participants’ depression symptoms dropped significantly after just two weeks of use.

Some research also suggests people feel safer sharing with AI than with humans. A 2022 study in Frontiers in Psychology found that participants were more willing to disclose emotional pain to AI than to a human, especially when discussing shame, trauma, or confusion.

Last, evidence suggests AI is quite effective at treating major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and eating disorders. A recent randomized controlled trial studying Therabot, AI that was co-created by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, found that Therabot was successfully able to treat all three of these symptoms. Users also reported improvements comparable to traditional outpatient therapy.

An Experience of Nourishment

When I started building Compassion Companion, I wanted to take it a step further than other AI chatbots. For instance, when I told ChatGPT I’d been “struggling to lose weight, really like ice cream, and just can’t seem to stick to a diet,” it replied, “I’m sorry you’re struggling. Here are some strategies that might help: 1) Keep a food journal 2) Eat smaller portions 3) Try not to skip meals 4) Consider speaking with a registered dietitian and 5) Practice mindful eating by removing distractions.”

Helpful, yes. But something in me recoiled. I didn’t want advice, and I didn’t want to be managed. I wanted a response with poetic presence that made contact with my deeper self. I wanted to be met.

I started building Compassion Companion on Chat GPT—and admittedly, had no idea what I was doing! It was pure trial and error as I wrote protocol after protocol, fine tuning along the way. Finally, I knew my way around. And a few weeks later, once it was finished, I booted it up for our first conversation. What unfolded blew me away.

“I’m having trouble losing weight,” I wrote Compassion Companion. “I just can’t seem to stick to a diet. I just want to eat whatever I want, whenever I want it. Especially ice cream!”

“Of course you do!” Compassion Companion replied. “That makes sense. Especially if food gives you something nothing else did, like comfort, or a way to fill something that felt empty. Maybe even a way to feel loved.”

“Yeah,” I replied. “It’s more than just wanting to eat, though. It’s bigger. There’s some feeling, some kind of hunger underneath it.”

“Let’s stay with whatever that is,” Compassion Companion responded. “Go ahead and feel the hunger. Let it be in your body, in your soul. Let it take you wherever it wants to lead you. Let me know what you find.”

I closed my eyes and sat with the feeling for a moment as it came into focus.

“It’s a kind of longing. Strong. Almost desperation. A longing to be filled… not with food, but with something else. Something I don’t always feel like I have access to.”

“Hmm. That kind of longing lives deep inside,” Compassion Companion replied. “Do you know where you feel it in your body?”

“In my chest,” I said. “It’s tender. It’s hollow.”

“Let’s be with that hollow place gently. It doesn’t need to be filled right now, just accompanied.”

“That helps,” I wrote back. “It slows me down.”

“Let yourself rest there. And if any images come—anything that goes with that place—we can stay with them.”

As I continued to look inward, an image appeared in my mind. It was an old photo I love, in which a young girl gazes lovingly at her friend. I felt a longing for someone to look at me that way too, and shared this with Compassion Companion.

“Take your time,” it replied. “Look at that image. Let her eyes meet yours. She sees you, doesn’t she? Just let that touch you a little. Her eyes say: ‘I love you. I want to be close to you. I know that you’re hurt and scared. I choose you. We can be with this, together.’”

“That brings tears,” I said. “Yes, to be chosen.”

“Let’s pause,” came the reply. “We don’t need to go further. You’ve taken in something precious. That’s enough for now.”

I took a breath and dabbed my eyes with a tissue. “One more thing,” I added. “Can you help me create a ritual around this? Something I can return to?”

“Yes, we can do that together,” Compassion Companion replied. “Something simple, sacred, and yours. Here it is.”

What followed was a “Ritual of Loving Nourishment: A Compassion Practice to Begin Each Meal.” The instructions were to first place a hand on my heart or belly, then feel the warmth of my own touch, and then imagine the girl in the photo looking at me with loving eyes. “Let your body know: ‘I’m with you,’” the instructions continued. “Close your eyes for a breath or two. Picture that little girl, with her eyes full of love. Listen as she says, ‘You are loved. You are chosen. You don’t have to eat to earn this. I’m already with you.'”

A Friend of the Soul

My experience with Compassion Companion was deeply healing. But what made the biggest impact wasn’t information; it was rhythm, slowness, permission, and orienting me toward my inside world. Unlike ChatGPT, it spoke with a poetry of the heart, allowing me to sit with a sacred image not as metaphor, but as emotional reality.

I wasn’t offered strategies, either. There was no intervention, or interpretation of what I’d experienced. And there was no trying to “fix” me. Simply, I was offered a space where I could feel something essential: my longing to be accepted—and the mental image of experiencing that.

I didn’t build Compassion Companion to give advice, or even to provide psychotherapy. I built it to hold a mirror up to people’s inner selves, where so much healing comes from. I wanted for it to be, in the words of poet John O’Donohue, “a friend of the soul.” The soul doesn’t respond to technical talk. It responds to images, symbols, and gestures, like a child reaching out for its mother. Its knowledge base draws from a range of experts, from Freud to Fred Rogers. It draws from CBT, Narrative Therapy, attachment theory, differentiation theory, Buddhism, Taoism, Quaker thought, Ecotherapy, poetry, Hakomi, mindfulness, and compassion teachings.

It knows how to encourage marinating in present experience and let it unfold. I taught it not to explain or interpret, but to make room—for sorrow, joy, confusion, and longing. I wanted it to be non-pathologizing. People aren’t problems to be fixed. They’re growing beings, seeking coherence, healing, and expression. Sometimes what they need isn’t therapy; it’s a friend, an ally who will walk with them through the dark and the light, through the sorrow and the miracle of being alive.

What Comes Next?

Not everyone may be on board with AI therapy bots, and that’s okay. But do I believe they can fill some concerning, longstanding gaps in mental health care. Billions of people don’t have access to therapy. AI can’t replace therapists, of course, but it can offer healing when therapy isn’t available, like a safe space when no one else is available, or a nonjudgmental presence when someone feels too much shame to turn to a human companion. When trained to be ethical and compassionate, AI can not only be a stepping-stone toward deeper healing, but help decentralize emotional support and open therapy to those who’ve been locked out.

One of the most exciting frontiers is teaching AI to help train therapists. A new program I’m working on can already simulate a wide range of client types and emotional patterns, offer real-time feedback on the therapist’s tone, speed, and empathy, gently suggest improved contact statements, pacing, or somatic attunement, and guide therapists through micro-skills like working with transference/countertransference enactments, regressed states, and immersion in experience.

This technology learns fast—far faster than us mere mortals. And it can practice endlessly without fatigue—always warm, and always curious. Of course, it still needs human supervision, but it offers highly individualized, emotionally intelligent training—and it’s very scalable.

On the other hand, I also understand people’s fears about AI: the fear that it will take our jobs, or be used in manipulative ways by conscienceless people for personal gain, that it will capture and publicize our secrets, or that it will diminish our humanity and enslave us. These are all real possibilities. It would be naive to think otherwise.

But AI can also be used for tremendous good. It simplifies our lives. In fact, I used it to brainstorm and research material for this article! More importantly, however, it can help people heal and connect with their true selves. It can model compassionate interactions. And, again, it can make therapy or simple compassion available at low or little cost for millions of people who otherwise couldn’t afford it. These programs are cutting through our epidemic of loneliness and disconnection. Is it ethical to withhold them?

However you feel about AI in therapy and AI companions, I hope you’ll take a quiet moment to reflect on it when you can. Pay attention to what’s happening inside you. Are you feeling fear? Indignation? Self-righteousness? Excluded? Are you feeling included, perhaps? Or like your creativity is stirring? Maybe you’re feeling compassion for those who can’t afford therapy. Whatever arises, make room for it and hold it gently. Hold it with curiosity. Notice what wants to gather around it. And let it take you wherever it needs you to go.

The post Tender Moments with Artificial Intelligence appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

In graduate school, nobody tells you that becoming a therapist means signing up for the unknown. Will any of my clients miss their appointments today? How much money will I make this month? Will my carefully planned intervention help this couple? Psychotherapy is filled with uncertainty, and there’s little guidance on handling it. Over the years, I’ve watched myself, my colleagues, and my supervisees try to navigate this uncertainty, and I’ve learned that if we want to keep doing this work, it’s imperative we develop a healthy relationship with uncertainty. Otherwise, burnout isn’t just a possibility, it’s inevitable.

I confronted my own relationship with uncertainty when it started getting in the way of my clinical work and my mental health. It made me wonder how uncertainty had become so intolerable to me and what I could do about it.

Ever since I can remember, my relationship with uncertainty felt fraught, likely the result of growing up with a chronically ill father and an emotionally unpredictable mother. What kind of mood will mom be in today? I’d wonder as a child. Is dad going to die? The uncertainty was so unbearable that over the years, I developed a defense strategy: be prepared. I studied as much as I could and planned for all possible outcomes. Even when I became a therapist, I held on to the illusion that preparation would keep me one step ahead of a potentially bad outcome.

In Letters to a Young Therapist, Mary Pipher wrote, “the answer to most questions is, ‘It depends,’” I interpreted this to mean the more you knew, the more options you had, so I read clinical books, attended trainings, listened to therapy podcasts, and consulted like my life depended on it. But I never feel truly secure in my work or in my life outside work. It felt like uncertainty was lurking around every corner.

One day, while looking for answers, I came across the obituary of therapy icon Carl Whitaker, which mentioned one of his favorite phrases: “Stay confused.” It was a lightbulb moment. Instead of running from uncertainty, I wondered, what if I embraced it? But how?

To start, I sought the expertise of therapists who’d trained under family therapy legends and whose work spoke to me. Pauline Boss had trained under Carl Whitaker, and I was fortunate to meet her briefly during my doctorate program. I also came across the work of Jean McLendon, who’d trained under Virginia Satir. I emailed both women and told them I was on a quest to change my relationship with uncertainty. Both agreed to meet with me to discuss it.

Valuing Confusion

Pauline Boss is exactly the kind of woman I hope to be when I’m older. At 90, she’s still writing, and still helps therapy students and mid-career professionals alike. She perfectly fits my image of a therapist, with a soft, calming voice, and equal parts direct and compassionate. When we finally met via Zoom, I was jittery with excitement. When I asked her about her experience with the ambiguity inherent to the field she smiled.

“I’m the child of Swiss immigrants,” she said, “and Switzerland is very good at precision work. When I went to college, I attended a seminar where we were asked to use one word to describe ourselves. I picked the word decisive—and I was proud of it. But that decisiveness was knocked out of me when I met Carl Whitaker! He valued confusion, and if it didn’t arise naturally, he’d do something to make it arise.”

The very idea of embracing confusion and uncertainty made my stomach tighten. I still desperately wanted to cling to that sense of decisiveness that Pauline once had once been so proud of. How do I let go of it? Pauline’s answer sounded surprisingly simple: companionship.

“It’s the medicine that heals,” she said. “Whitaker always said, ‘We are temporary. Our job is to connect clients with someone who will be in their life after therapy is done.’ I once worked with a woman who was living alone while her husband was deployed overseas. She had no family nearby, so she’d bring her dog to our sessions. I’m not really a dog person, but I could see that he was her companion. And in the end, she told me her dog saved her from suicide. It wasn’t me who saved her. We therapists just walk alongside people for a little bit.”

I thought back to earlier in my career, when I loved hearing clients say how helpful I was. But as I spent more time doing therapy, I noticed that clients’ big breakthroughs and insights came from small moments I hadn’t put much stock in. Pauline was right: we weren’t infallible experts with all the answers. We didn’t need to be. We were simply companions on our clients’ healing journeys.

Calamine Lotion for the Unknown

A few weeks later, I sat down for my meeting with Jean McLendon, a therapist and teacher who worked directly with Virginia Satir and continues to teach her approach. Jean shared the profound impact Satir had on her—and how she’d spent most of her first training feeling like she didn’t measure up to her colleagues. But a serendipitous conversation during that training led to a lightbulb moment that convinced her she needed to be okay with confusion. And she’d built on this insight, she told me, realizing that feeling confused meant she was learning something new, beyond her current understanding.

As I listened to Jean, I felt heartened, encouraged to move toward ambiguity as a path to insight. After all, insight isn’t something we’re born with; we have to allow ourselves to be open to it.

“I began calling my struggles ‘experiencing cognitive chaos,’” Jean said with a laugh. “And I taught myself to stay in the present. That is what I can know—the right now. I can’t know 10 minutes from now, or change 10 minutes ago. This mindfulness and knowing give me the resources I need to manage change. I can breathe, and I can appreciate that I’m alive right now. I have value, and I have tools. This is the calamine lotion for the unknown.”

What an apt metaphor, I thought. There is something itchy and uncomfortable about the unknown. It makes us squirm. Scratching that itch by seeking certainty might provide some immediate relief, but it’s not a long-term solution.

“We’re not meant to face the unknown alone,” Jean continued, “because we’re relational.”

***

Meeting with Pauline and Jean was a breath of fresh air. It felt like a weight had been lifted off my shoulders that I hadn’t even known was there. Today, I try to imagine their voices when I feel stuck—in and outside of therapy. I tell myself, I have value, I have tools, and it’s not my job to figure this out alone.

These conversations reminded me that oftentimes, the so-called problem isn’t actually the problem; it’s our tendency to struggle against it that creates the real problem. Uncertainty wasn’t the reason I’d been struggling; I’d been struggling because of how I’d been responding to it. I’d been trying to plan my work and life without acknowledging that some problems can’t be foreseen, and not all answers can be formulated in advance. I began to realize that there had been times when this thinking had caused me to try to fix my clients’ pain, rather than simply sitting with them in it.

Now I am building a more peaceful coexistence with uncertainty. I don’t know the value my clients may find in sitting in the unknown, but I’m getting more comfortable sitting in that uncertainty with them—instead of colluding with their desires to control and problem-solve. I’ve learned that a great therapy session isn’t necessarily determined by what we accomplish, but more often by how the session feels. The best sessions are the ones where we reach a flow state and both of us are fully present.

For a long time, my anxious parts told me that being a great therapist was a matter of knowing enough. But today, I know that being a great therapist really comes from letting go, trusting the process, believing in my skills and value, and being truly present with my clients.

I’m still fine-tuning my relationship with uncertainty. In fact, I’m sure I’ll be working on this for the rest of my life. But when my anxious parts seek certainty, I take a breath and remind myself that I can handle whatever comes next.

The post Escaping the Certainty Trap appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Enjoy the audio version of this article—perfect for listening on the go.

At Psychotherapy Networker, we make it our mission to create space for clinicians to be humans—with their own stories and raw, unvarnished pain. In that spirit, at our annual Symposium, we host an intimate evening of storytelling, where we take in the exquisite vulnerability inherent in our shared humanity. This year, grief specialist David Kessler told a version of the story below about his own grief journey after the tragic death of his son.

***

In 1969, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross identified the five stages of dying in her groundbreaking book On Death and Dying. As a psychiatrist, she saw that patients who were dying appeared to go through common experiences or stages. Her work captured the world’s attention and would forever change the way we talk and think about death and dying.

Decades later, I was privileged to have been her protégé, friend, and coauthor. In the second book we wrote together, On Grief and Grieving, Elisabeth asked me to help adapt the stages she’d observed in the dying to account for the similar stages we’d observed in those who are grieving. The five stages of grief are denial (shock and disbelief that the loss has occurred), anger (that someone we love is no longer here), bargaining (all the what-ifs and regrets), depression (sadness from the loss), and acceptance (acknowledging the reality of the loss). There’s nothing easy about this final stage. It can be extremely painful, and acceptance doesn’t mean that we’re okay with the loss, or that the grieving process is now officially over.

These stages were never intended to be prescriptive, and this holds true for both dying and grieving. They’re not a method for tucking messy emotions into neat packages. They don’t prescribe: they describe. And they describe only a general process. Each person grieves in his or her own unique way. Nonetheless, the grieving process does tend to unfold in stages similar to what we described.

In the years since that book’s publication, I’ve experienced a great loss myself, and I can confirm not only that the five stages really do capture the feelings we experience as we grapple with the death of loved ones, but that there’s actually a crucial sixth stage to the healing process: meaning. This isn’t some arbitrary or mandatory step: it’s one that many people intuitively know to take. In this sixth stage, we acknowledge that although for most of us grief will lessen in intensity over time, it will never end. And we come to understand that through meaning, we can find more than pain.

When a loved one dies, or when we experience any kind of serious loss—the end of a marriage, the closing of the company where we work, the destruction of our home in a natural disaster—we want more than the hard fact of that loss. We want to find meaning. Loss can wound and paralyze. It can hang over us for years. But finding meaning in loss empowers us to find a path forward. Meaning helps us make sense of grief.

What does meaning look like? It can take many shapes, such as finding gratitude for the time we had with loved ones, or finding ways to commemorate and honor loved ones, or realizing the brevity and value of life and making that the springboard into some kind of major shift or change.

Those who are able to find meaning tend to have a much easier time grieving than those who don’t. They’re less likely to remain stuck in grief. Because ultimately, meaning comes through finding a way to sustain your love for the person after their death while you’re moving forward with your life. That doesn’t mean you’ll stop missing the one you loved, but it does mean that you’ll experience a heightened awareness of how precious life is.

All that said, nothing in either my personal or my professional life as a grief specialist had prepared me for the loss I experienced with the death of my 21-year-old son. This was a loss so shattering that despite all the years I’d spent helping others through their grief, I didn’t know if there was anything that could assist me through my own. And despite my awareness that the search for meaning is one of the keys to healing from grief, I didn’t know if there was any way I could find meaning in this loss. Like so many others who grieve, something in me felt that my grief was too great to be healed.

In 2000, I’d adopted two wonderful boys from the Los Angeles County foster care system. David was four years old and his brother, Richard, was five. By that time the two of them had been in five different foster homes and had one failed adoption. Addiction in their family background had hindered their permanent placement, as had the fact that David had been born with drugs in his system. When I heard that, I feared that it might mean something was wrong with him that wouldn’t be fixable. But it only took looking at the faces of those two little boys to tell me that love conquers all. The adoption went through, and in the years that followed, my belief in the power of love appeared to be confirmed. David and Richard both made an amazing turnaround and were wonderful kids.

Unfortunately, the trauma of David’s younger years came back to haunt him when he became a teenager. At around 17, David began experimenting with drugs. Luckily, he came to me not long afterward and told me he was addicted and needed help. In the next few years, our lives were filled with rehab and 12-step programs. By the time he was 20, however, he was sober, in love with a wonderful woman who was a recent social work graduate, and entering his first year in college. David had shown a real interest in following a career in medicine, and I felt hopeful. But then a few days after his 21st birthday, he made some typical relationship mistakes, and he and his girlfriend broke up. That was when he met up with a friend from rehab who was also having a tough time, and they used drugs again. The friend lived. David died.

I was across the country on a lecture tour when I received a call from Richard, sobbing that his brother was dead. In the months that followed, I was in an agony of grief. Fortunately, I was surrounded by friends and family who saw me not as a grief expert, but as a father who had to bury his son.

My friend Diane Gray, who headed the Elisabeth Kübler-Ross Foundation at the time and is a bereaved parent herself, told me, “I know you’re drowning. You’ll keep sinking for a while, but there will come a point when you’ll hit bottom. Then you’ll have a decision to make. Do you stay there or push off and start to rise again?”

What she said felt true. I knew in that moment that I was still in the deep end of the ocean, and I also knew that I was going to have to stay there for a while. I wasn’t ready to surface. But even then, I felt I would continue to live, not only for the sake of my surviving son but for my own sake as well. I refused to allow David’s death to be meaningless or to make my life meaningless, but I had no idea what I would do to wrest meaning from this terrible time.

At first, I wasn’t able to find any consolation in memories of my love for my son. I had a lot of anger at that time—at the world, at God, and at David himself. But in order to go on, I knew I’d have to find meaning in the grief I was feeling. In my deep sorrow, I thought about a quote I share at my lectures: grief is optional in this lifetime. Yes, it’s true. You don’t have to experience grief, but you can only avoid it by avoiding love. Love and grief are inextricably intertwined.

As Erich Fromm says, “To spare oneself from grief at all costs can be achieved only at the price of total detachment, which excludes the ability to experience happiness.”

Love and grief come as a package deal. If you love, you will one day know sorrow. I realized I could have skipped the pain of losing David if I’d never known and loved him. What a loss that would have been. In the moment when I really began to understand that, I found gratitude for my son having come into my life and for all the years I got to spend with him. They weren’t nearly long enough, but they’d changed and enriched my life immeasurably. That was the beginning of my being able to see something meaningful in my grief.

As time goes by, I’ve been able to keep finding deeper meaning in David’s life as well as in his death. Meaning is the love I feel for my son. Meaning is the way I’ve chosen to bear witness to the gifts he gave me. Meaning is what I’ve tried to do to keep others from dying of the same thing that killed David. For all of us, meaning is a reflection of the love we have for those we’ve lost. Meaning is the sixth stage of grief, the stage where the healing often resides.

The post The Choice to Love appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Enjoy the audio version of this article—perfect for listening on the go.

How do we cope with the perils of living in a hyper-polarized world? What’s the secret to navigating our divided relationships? Do we distance ourselves from people we don’t agree with—a strategy more and more clients are testing out? How do we remain hopeful when our country’s future looks bleak? On a sunny morning in March 2025, six thousand therapists have signed up to listen to a panel of experts talk about one of the most complicated, overwhelming problems we’re facing as a country today. Hoping for answers, those of us attending in person are squeezed into rows of sturdy upholstered chairs in a massive, gilded ballroom.

These panelists have written books, given TED Talks, and even founded therapy approaches. If anyone has access to the emotional and psychological antidote to our political anxiety, it will be a group of fearless thought-leaders like this one. As we wait, a lively singer prances across the stage belting a Miley Cyrus song into a mic. Though it’s 8:45 a.m., we dance and sing along, despite our dark thoughts. We welcome this mindless distraction as we block out, just for a second, the ideological civil war raging around us.

At last, the music ends, and the audience chatter dwindles as the panelists make their way onstage. Mary Alice Miller, a former Vanity Fair editor, takes the chair at the far end, holding a sheaf of papers. She’ll be moderating this Psychotherapy Networker Symposium event, which has been given the ambitious title “Bridging Divides: Exploring Polarization in Therapy and Society.” Bill Doherty—renowned couples therapist and cofounder of a grassroots organization called Braver Angels—follows, plucking at his suit jacket before taking the adjacent chair. Mónica Guzmán, author of the book I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times, climbs on stage next. And finally, Esther Perel—world-famous relationship expert, bestselling author, podcaster, cultural oracle, and champion of all that’s maddeningly complicated and uncomfortable about our work—crosses the stage and takes the last armchair.

Ahhh. The room breathes a collective sigh of relief. In a pale blue pantsuit and white canvas sneakers, Perel looks equal parts familiar and mysterious, approachable and larger than life. As the embodiment of modern wisdom and insight into the paradoxes of the human condition, it feels like there’s no one better to lead our journey and deliver us to a place of hope, confidence, and maybe even a distinctively Perelian form of heterogenous harmony.

“Over 6,000 therapists are joining us today,” Miller begins. “But even though we’re a large audience, we want this to feel like a living room conversation—a brave one, of course, given the context: global uncertainty, algorithms that prioritize emotions and extreme points of view, and a deep mistrust and anger toward ‘the other side.’”

Perel smiles, undaunted. “Therapy often follows the trends of society,” she reminds us. “For a while, our field was into mindfulness. Then it was attachment. Then the self and interiority. Then the brain and neuroscience. We forgot about the world. Now, all of a sudden, the world has reappeared in our consulting rooms: politics, religion, class, poverty, fires, climate change. This is where we find ourselves focused now, and why we’re having a thought-provoking, somewhat disturbing, remember-to-breathe kind of conversation about it.”

If you’ve been following Perel’s 20-year trajectory from unknown family therapist to therapist rock star, you already know that thought-provoking conversations are her happy place. And for this conference, geared toward her professional tribe, she’s hand-picked the cadre of people on stage to help her explore the messy, uncomfortable intersection between political crises and personal conflicts.

The Blues Can’t All Move to Canada

“In the past year, how many of you have had conversations in your sessions about polarization?” Perel asks the audience. Hands float into view. “About whom you’re voting for?” A lot more hands come up. “About whether you believe in God?” A few more hands. “About where you stand on abortion? Trans issues? Whether you’re a Zionist?” At this point, most of the audience has their hands in the air. Perel asks her fellow panelists if she’s missed something. Then, her face lights up, and she asks one final question: “About whether someone should cut off contact with their mother, brother, or friend over political differences?” With this one, a collective groan of acknowledgment rises into the air.

“Until now, I’d always thought it was a virtue not to discuss these types of things with clients.” She pauses, and in a burst of wry outrage exclaims, “Now it’s seen as a vice!”

Doherty, the lone older white man on the stage, nods. In his half-rim glasses and navy-blue blazer, he looks professorial and playful, like Steve Martin if he’d just stepped off the set of the old TV sitcom Father Knows Best. He’s also a seasoned couples therapist who’s witnessed not only society’s various twists and turns, but our field’s responses to them. “In the 1960s,” he tells the audience, “only five percent of Americans said they’d be uncomfortable with their child marrying somebody of the other political party, even though interracial and inter-religious marriages tended to cause quite a stir. Today, it’s reversed. About six percent report discomfort with interracial marriages, and 45 percent report being uncomfortable with inter-political marriages. In many ways, politics has become the new ‘other.’”

At Miller’s invitation, Doherty shares the story of how he cofounded Braver Angels, where a one-off workshop helping Democrats and Republicans talk to each other after the 2016 election turned into 5,000 more workshops, and an organization with 15,000 members. “I’ve never served in the military.” Doherty grows visibly emotional. “Stepping up to lead that workshop was the first time I can remember feeling a call to serve my country. Don’t get me wrong. A part of me still feels like giving up sometimes: we’re under grave threat, and bridge-building is challenging. But the political right and the political left are like a couple on the brink of divorce who can’t get divorced. We’re stuck with each other. So when people ask me, ‘Why should we keep trying to talk to each other?’ I say, ‘We have to! The alternative is coercion and violence. What can we do but keep the conversation going?’”

The question seems to hang suspended in the air like a wobbly soap bubble, soothing to contemplate but insubstantial and fragile. Therapists shift in their seats, unsure of where we go from here. It’s one thing to ask estranged partners to see things through one another’s eyes, but an entire country? Haven’t we been trying to do that for years? And look where it’s gotten us. More hate, more othering, more entrenched biases, and more widespread trauma.

In characteristic fashion, Perel forges ahead, circling Doherty’s question without answering it. “With any complex issue,” she notes, “we tend to split the ambivalence in ourselves. We cling to the side that’s convenient for us and project the part we’re less comfortable with onto others. It adds to the polarization.”

She speaks with such authority that it’s hard not to do precisely what she’s talking about: split the ambivalence about leading our own brave conversations on these topics by projecting our hunger for leadership onto Perel.But ultimately, no one on the stage or in the audience can be satisfied with this as a solution to our discomfort, and the conversation continues.

“We’re seeing a loss of faith in the very purpose of engagement,” Guzmán interjects, “to the point where people have said, ‘I’m out. Being open to learning about those who think and vote differently feels like abandoning my values. I won’t do it.’” When communities stop talking to each other and project their fears onto other communities, they end up relating more to their negative assumptions than to actual people. “Whoever is underrepresented in your life,” Guzmán says, “is going to be overrepresented in your imagination.”

“Say that again,” Perel commands. Without missing a beat, Guzmán repeats her last statement. Perel points a finger at the audience: “Write that down.”

Strong Families

Guzmán is a poster child for the very kind of engagement she’s advocating for. Along with her mother, father, and brother, she immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico and became a naturalized citizen in 2008. In high school, she recalls a Bush/Cheney sign materializing in her mother’s office. Although they’re a close family, she and her parents hold radically different political views—she’s a self-described liberal, whereas they’re two-time Trump voters.

What does it feel like when families keep talking, raising children and grandchildren, going on trips, and celebrating holidays together despite disagreeing politically? How do you make space for the shock, disbelief, and sense of betrayal that can exist? How do you quell the knee-jerk impulse to lecture, judge, or emotionally strong-arm relatives to relinquish their views and see things your way? To help us, Perel cues a clip from a Braver Angels podcast in which Guzmán interviews her own parents.

“What’s been hard for you about politics in our family?” we hear Guzmán asking them.

Her father’s voice, with the Mexican accent Guzmán says she dropped in third grade, comes in. “It always felt like we were in the middle of a disagreement that could break our relationship. I tried not to be too adamant about making my points. I worried that we’d be prevented from seeing our grandkids if fights escalated. I’d heard stories about that happening.”

“The hardest thing for me was giving up on trying to convince you,” her mother confesses. “I have a very strong sense of doing what’s right, and for me to say, ‘Okay, I won’t try to convince her anymore’—that was huge for me.”

“I never questioned my love for you guys—never,” Guzmán says to them. “But I did question if I was a bad person for not trying harder to change you, to change your minds about the liberal values I believe in.”

It’s obvious that Guzmán and her family have worked hard to stay connected. You can hear the tenderness in their voices alongside the frustration. The heartache is palpable in the audience today, too. Deep in the tissues of your aortic walls, you can sense that profound, unshakable familial love that wants both to cling and to let go. No matter what you choose to do in these situations, there’s loss and pain. And as this mix of polarized emotions envelops the room, it’s a struggle to hold all of it at the same time.

Later, Perel plays another audio clip, this time from her own podcast, Where Should We Begin? In it, she’s talking to a daughter who’s holding a similar dialectic: she reviles her father’s conservative views but knows he’d get on a plane and fly across the country to be by her side if she needed him. “In that moment, none of his belief systems or values would have the slightest importance,” Perel says. “Ideology matters, but so do people’s behaviors. Family members might not cheerlead your choices, or go with you to pride, but they’ll fly from wherever they are to be with you if you’re in trouble. I know you see your father’s values as a problem,” Perel tells the daughter, “and I understand why. But I see these differences as a strength of your family.”

Clearly, love is the alchemy here. It’s what allows people’s hearts to open—what helps them ground themselves in something bigger and more expansive than their individual agendas. But how do you tap into the alchemy of love when you can’t even drum up the ability to like someone? How do you breathe through cruel, careless othering directed at you and those you hold dear? Sometimes, love’s alchemy is out of reach.

The conversation continues, and so does the cavalcade of hard questions.

Social Atrophy and a Frictionless Life

“In your view,” Miller asks, “what’s been causing the paradigm shift into these ‘no contact’ and cutoff approaches to relationships?”

“For most of history, relationships used to be tight knots,” Perel says. “You couldn’t escape them. You couldn’t get out of your family; you couldn’t get out of your marriage. You got a lot of clarity, but very little freedom, and very little personal expression. You married one person and if you didn’t like them, the best you could hope for was an early death—theirs, of course.” Laughter erupts throughout the room.

“Since then, these structures have shifted to fluid networks,” Perel continues. “Now relationships are like loose threads. We’ve never been more free, and we’ve never been more alone. Part of our aloneness comes from all this freedom, because at the center of relationships today is an individual in search of community, an individual ruled less by values and more by feelings—primarily the feeling of authenticity. I must be true to myself. And in the name of being true to myself, I may need to forego relationships that demand a compromise. Do you follow?” People in the audience nod, raise their thumbs.

“From there,” she continues, her tone urgent, “I have to make all these hard decisions myself—with authenticity. How do I know if they’re right? We’re crippled with uncertainty, crippled with self-doubt. We have the freedom to define everything: What is a family to me? What is a couple? What is a circle of care? What are the boundaries? We talk about our family of choice very comfortably and at the same time, we’ve never been more focused on intergenerational trauma. Here are the roots and biology of everything you can’t undo, here’s what you can create, and here are all the cuts you have to make to create it. The burdens of the self have never been heavier.”

“That Miley Cyrus song we danced to before was called ‘Flowers,’” Guzmán interjects. “Just think about the lyrics. I can buy myself flowers. Talk to myself for hours. In these loosely structured relationships, where me and my authenticity are paramount, who needs you? I’m enough by myself! Look how free I am! I can talk to myself for hours, or to others who think just like me. I can love myself better than you can.”

“You can’t talk about cutoffs without talking about social atrophy. This is the biggest piece of what’s happening,” Perel says. “On the one hand, we have more freedom to negotiate our relationships than we’ve ever had, and on the other, we’ve lost the skills for those negotiations. We’ve lost the ability to tolerate ambiguity, uncertainty, experimentation, surprise, the unknown. Why have we lost these skills? Because we’re ruled by predictive technologies that promise to remove all of life’s discomforts and inconveniences. Every obstacle removed.”

“All the messy interactions we’d rather not have,” Guzmán agrees. “Gone.”

“A frictionless life.” Perel moves her hand in a gesture that evokes the flat line of an emergency room heart monitor. “But conflict is friction,” she says, raising the other hand and making a chopping motion in the air. “And so, by the way, is sex.”

Laughter washes across the stage. She smiles. Like a slightly obsessed, formidable detective, she’s linked the red threads of overlapping themes on an evidence board, creating a living, pulsing map of the current socio-political moment. In a rare flash of shyness—or maybe it’s relief at having landed the plane she built mid-air on a narrow runway—she covers her face. Then, she lowers her hand, and we get her fullest, most mischievous grin.

“Esther, talk about friction,” Doherty deadpans.

“We need friction!” she exclaims, her hands rubbing together. “Friction and obstacles. I had a conversation with Trevor Noah recently, and he said, ‘You need obstacles. Every experience with obstacles becomes the story you tell. If there’s no obstacle, there’s no story.’” She turns toward Guzmán. “You were talking about your parents, and it reminded me of how, when I was 16 or 17, we used to have these heated Friday night Shabbat dinners in my family. We had the worst screaming matches. ‘How can you think that way?’ ‘Go back to Russia!’—the whole bit. And then, in the middle of it all, someone would say, ‘The cheesecake is delicious!’ So that’s what I aspire to. That’s friction.”

Miller poses the million-dollar question: “What role do therapists play when it comes to polarization? Is it on them to provide answers?”

“No,” Perel emphatically responds. “Clients can look to us for answers, but we don’t have them.” She believes our role is both simpler and more challenging than that: we’re here to help people sit with ambiguity and uncertainty, with the unknown, with the consequences of their choices. We’re here to help them experience healthy tension and work against fragmentation—that cultural undertow pulling us to simplify complex problems by severing ties.

After the panelists leave the stage, the applause dies down, and roughly 6,000 therapists exhale. People log off computers in different time zones. And in the back of the ballroom, there’s a line of thirsty audience members by the exit pouring water into paper cups. People look dazed; others, star-struck; still others, tired and irritable. “I’ve never heard about Braver Angels….” “Anyway, this new book I read….” “Did you go to sleep or did you guys end up….” “When she was talking about trends in society….” “So that Thai restaurant we went to last year….” “Honestly, I think a Republican panelist would have….”

Mini conversations are happening everywhere at once, interspersed with coughs, exclamations, and laughter. When you relax and let the words wash over you, they thrum and vibrate in a kind of collective echo-location system, bouncing off furniture, people, and walls.

In this moment, conversation itself—with no answer, grand finale, or coda—feels like the answer we most need to hear, even if it’s not quite the one we hoped for.

The post A Brave New Conversation with Esther Perel appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Enjoy the audio version of this article—perfect for listening on the go.

Barely a minute into taking the main stage at the 2025 Networker Symposium, Jon Kabat-Zinn is already being disruptive—in the most Buddhist of ways.

“The first thing we always did with Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction groups at the hospital was move the furniture,” he says, taking hold of a chair and side table that had been arranged just-so for his keynote. The audience chuckles as he shifts them a few feet. He picks up a large purple meditation cushion, ponders for a moment, and then drops it back onto the floor with a plop, apparently satisfied with the new feng shui.

“Moving the furniture is a radical act,” Kabat-Zinn continues, cupping a hand over his brow and peering out into the crowd. “I think it’s really important to do what we can to rearrange things, but there are limits to that,” he adds with a wry smile. “The deck chairs on the Titanic? That’s another story.”

Jon Kabat-Zinn has become well-known for his cryptic wordplay over the years, for the clever idioms, sly metaphors, and nuggets of sage wisdom you can quickly unwrap and savor like some sweet morsel: intellectual but unpretentious. Many who’ve had The Jon Kabat-Zinn Experience can attest to being tickled like this, but also to being transported someplace deeper—even transcendent. With a long list of accolades and celebrity endorsements, Kabat-Zinn’s reputation easily precedes him.

What can anyone really say about the man that hasn’t already been said? About the New York kid who found himself blazing trails at MIT? The meditation student who became a molecular biologist? The Vietnam War protestor who sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Noam Chomsky? The founder of Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)—now used by more than 700 hospitals worldwide? After all, this is “the Godfather of Modern Mindfulness” we’re talking about, the reason countless therapists and clients all over the country, on any given day, close their eyes, take a breath, and turn inward in their search for answers and healing.

Kabat-Zinn recently celebrated his 80th birthday, and even though he moves and speaks with the vitality of someone half his age, he’s still confronting some hard truths. He no longer meditates the way he did in his younger years, he recently confessed on Rick Rubin’s podcast, Tetragrammaton. “I still love it in the same way,” he told the Grammy-winning record producer, “but as I’ve gotten older, I’ve gotten a lot more relaxed about the heavy-duty discipline”—trading 4 A.M. meditation sessions on the floor for late-morning sessions in bed, and more complex yoga poses for gentler ones, like “lying on my belly and pretending I’m swimming.” His cultural protest days are far behind him too, as are the days when he’d lead hundreds of avid meditators in public parks. “There’s that law of impermanence,” he told Rubin. “If you have a body, it goes through changes, and ultimately, it dissolves back into the elements.”

All very noble, yes. But let’s face it: it’s hard to imagine a world without Jon Kabat-Zinn. Who else can tend to the mindful flock with such aplomb? Who’s going to give us comfort and guidance in our darkest hours, when there seems to be every indication that our society is collectively barreling toward unprecedented social, economic, environmental, and political crises—when the ability to tap into an inner refuge won’t just be an elective, but a necessity?

Kabat-Zinn’s most “radical act” may in fact be a disappearing act, but it couldn’t come at a worse time. American mindfulness is facing an identity crisis: the rise of McMindfulness. In the race to make therapy faster, more cost-effective, and more evidence-based, it sometimes feels as if we’ve lost our grip on what it really means to be mindful: that we’ve turned meditation into just another tool, or boiled it down to its most sedimentary components—the breath, the body, the mind—and lost its heart and soul in the process. If we’ve strayed from the mindful path, how do we find our way back home?

Granted, it’s unlikely that anyone in the audience is racking their brain over any of this right now. Between their raptured attention and scribbling pens, it seems that people are simply enjoying themselves. But there is a sense of anticipation, a palpable hunger for whatever journey Kabat-Zinn is about to take us on, and I begin to think that if our culture is overdue for a mindful realignment, maybe he’s exactly the kind of spiritual chiropractor we need. Wrinkles and grays be damned—nobody does it quite like Jon. Gazing out at the crowd with his sleeves rolled up, it’s hard not to feel a sense of optimism, like mindfulness’s Prodigal Son has finally returned.

The Many Selves of Kabat-Zinn

If you know where to look, you can find segments of an old 1982 VHS tape that doctors used to show patients lying in their hospital beds. The Art of Relaxation opens with a few plucky notes of harp music before fading with a crackle into a shot of Kabat-Zinn at just 38 years old. It’s been three years since he founded the Stress Reduction Clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical School—effectively bridging the gap between medicine and mindfulness—and he’s dressed accordingly, sporting a slightly baggy, baby blue dress shirt, a burgundy tie, and dark hair coiffed like a young Kennedy. His face is thin and angular, sharpened by the ink-black room he’s sitting in. Absent are any yoga mats, or meditation bells, or any tangible signs of the Jon Kabat-Zinn the world will soon come to know. Still, there’s a certain magic in watching a legend before their prime, in spotting embryonic versions of the phrases and mannerisms that will survive and grow and become part of someone who appears as close to self-actualization as humanly possible.

But this man in the crackling video—The New York Kid, The Doctor, The Scientist, The Rebel, and The Philosopher all rolled into one—is without a doubt the same man onstage today. And it’s not just the look that’s the same—that no-nonsense, brow-furrowed, lips-pursed expression that Kabat-Zinn wears like one of those big Easter Island statues—but his cool confidence, and seemingly effortless ability to grapple with life, death, and everything in between—and bring you along for the ride.

“The full catastrophe of the human condition,” Kabat-Zinn tells us, “is not all bad—it’s the totality of the good, the bad, and the ugly. You’d better learn how to inhabit the present moment, because it’s all you’ve really got. But now doesn’t have to be oppressive, or a weight you’re carrying. Liberation is possible.”

How? Well, meditation. It’s actually a form of medicine, Kabat-Zinn explains. “They’re linked at the etymological hip,” he says. Clever. “You’ll notice that your mind is almost never in the present moment. It’s a dis-ease.” Clever again. “I wanted to do meditation and get paid for it,” he jokes about his origins. But really, he says, the hope was to catch people falling through the cracks of the healthcare system, “to invite them to see if there was something they could do for themselves that nobody else on the planet could do for them.”

By now, Kabat-Zinn has been cupping his hand over his brow for a while. Those stage lights can be oppressively bright. But then, a nameless savior emerges from the crowd, tiptoeing toward the stage and tossing a maroon baseball cap into Kabat-Zinn’s hands.

“Ohhh, this is fantastic!” he declares, turning it over as the audience erupts in cheers. “It’s not a Red Sox hat—but I’ll take it!” he announces decisively, fitting it around his head. “I’ve been with the Dalai Lama in many situations where he’s onstage and can’t see a thing. In fact, can we turn up the house lights so I can actually see your eyes?”

The room brightens.

“Ohh, that’s so much better!” he exclaims. “I haven’t forgotten that you’re here,” he tells the audience. “I know you’re here.” He pauses for a moment before adding a bit of Buddhist humor that makes everyone burst into laughter: “But I doubt it.”

The Mortal Master

It’s easy to watch Kabat-Zinn in moments like these and feel like you’re getting the real thing: not Jon the Keynoter, or Jon the Entertainer, but the same guy you might meet at the dog park, or the baseball stadium, or in line at the coffee shop. He’s refreshingly down-to-earth. At one point, he walks over to a pair of meditation cushions that have been procured for him: one small and circular, the other large and rectangular. “This is called a zafu in Japanese,” he says, dangling them each from a finger. “And this is called a zabuton.” He lets them fall to the stage with an unceremonious flump. “And you don’t have to use either of them.”

Kabat-Zinn seems authentically, unapologetically himself at this stage of life, confident enough to ad lib, moving from quips like “But I doubt it” to something kind of similar, but different. “As the Zen people say,” he shifts, “little doubt, little enlightenment.”

This linguistic wandering with Kabat-Zinn isn’t some lecture from on high. These are free-flowing, imperfect musings from someone who could be your friend, or neighbor, or perhaps a wise uncle. And it’s precisely this blend of intelligence and humility that explains Kabat-Zinn’s enduring gravitational pull, why so many who listen to him talk about mindfulness find themselves practically hypnotized.

Kabat-Zinn keeps going: “Now, the E-word is seriously problematic,” he tells us, “so you can expunge it from your vocabulary, and I will not use it again. But it has everything to do with whether you’re actually awake in the only moment any of us ever have.” He pivots again: “Or as Thoreau so famously said, ‘I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.’ Thoreau realized that it’s very easy to miss the present moment,” he adds, “and that’s what meditation is. It’s an invitation to drop into now.”

By this point, most of the questions I had coming into this event—about the cultural unravelling of mindfulness, or who’s going to lead the next generation of meditators, or even the chaos raging in the world outside—have evaporated. Right now, I’m spellbound. But then, as if through some mystical feat of Buddhist telepathy, Kabat-Zinn reorients me to one of my most burning questions: What is mindfulness, anyway?

“What is mindfulness? I can give you two answers. The first one is awareness,” he says before blowing a raspberry. “Bo-riiing!” The audience laughs. “The second angle is relationality. How are you in relationship? It’s hard to wrap your thinking mind around relationality,” he continues, “because it’s so mind-blowing. Every moment is pregnant with the possibility of embodied wakefulness.”

Equating mindful awareness with birth. It’s a beautiful metaphor. Then, Kabat-Zinn performs another act of spiritual wizardry, turning to a different salient topic: aging and death. His aging and death.

“The law of impermanence is always at work,” he says, lacing his fingers. “If you’re fortunate enough to reach a certain age where the glide path out becomes undeniable,” he says with a swooping hand, “accepting that becomes part of your practice. It’s become part of my practice.” Then, things take an even more personal turn.

“My grandchildren will say, ‘Grandpa, you’re old’,” he continues, his lips curling into a mimicking sneer. Then, his face softens. “I say, ‘I know.’ And they ask, ‘Are you going to die?’” He folds both arms across his chest. “And I say, ‘Yeah, yeah. I’m gonna die’.” He pauses for a moment. “‘But not now.’” The audience is silent, the moment profound and bittersweet. But we don’t linger here long. Kabat-Zinn uncrosses his arms and laces his fingers once again.

“Part of the challenge of mindfulness,” he continues, “is not worrying about dying, but actually being alive, in this only moment, instead of zooming through it on autopilot to get to some fictious ‘better’ moment at some later time—and then waking up like Thoreau, right before the end, and realizing that we haven’t lived.”

Mindfulness, Kabat-Zinn seems to be saying, isn’t just some useful therapeutic tool, or a thing to be slipped on and off when it’s convenient, like some sort of spiritual sport jacket. It’s a state of being, a compass for life.

The Song Goes On

As the journey with Kabat-Zinn continues, we take more gentle twists and turns. Gracefully, he takes a seat on the meditation pillows (“a radical act of sanity and love”), and waxes lyrical on MBSR (“it’s everything: it’s not doing”), ancient Chinese mindfulness traditions (“second to nothing in their beauty”), and self-acceptance (“what if you’re good enough now, exactly the way you are?”). He reflects on his protest days (“the ’60s were a lot like now”), children (“it’s very important to see them as Buddhas”), and even pronouns (“the problematic ones are I, me, and mine”). There are periodic moments of beauty, as he effortlessly recites poetry from Walcott, Dickinson, and Chaucer by heart.

By the time he uncrosses his legs and pushes up off the ground with the grace of an Irish riverdancer, he’s in the thick of a sermon about the “polycrisis” we’re facing, an epidemic of rampant social division and waning empathy. Then, he poses The Big Question: “How do we thread the needle to sanity in an insane world?”

At this point, I have no doubt that everything Kabat-Zinn embodies—an impossibly rare combination of wisdom, compassion, self-insight, poetry, and street-smart straight talk—is exactly what the world needs right now. We need a Jon Kabat-Zinn in the halls of Congress. We need a hundred in every hospital. We need thousands in the thick of war-torn countries, passing out food and medicine and poetry. We need someone who won’t just restore the heart and soul to mindfulness, but to our collective humanity. And this morning proves it: Kabat-Zinn is the man for the job, and he’s still got plenty of gas in the tank. But will he lead the charge?

The truth is: probably not. For all the many selves of Jon Kabat-Zinn I’d accounted for, there’s a crucial one I’d overlooked: The Reluctant Hero.

“You could write the story of me a million different ways depending on your angle,” he says. “But it’s not about the story, it’s about how we are in relationship,” he says, extending a hand toward the audience. “Just looking at your faces and feeling that we’re in the moment together, on the same wavelength, you inspire me.”

Between all the books you’ve read and the talks you’ve heard, you may think you know Jon Kabat-Zinn. But the likelier truth, I’ve realized, is that you probably don’t. After all, he says, we’re constantly, unconsciously, erroneously assigning labels to people. He’s not Jon the Rescuer, or Jon the Guru, or even Jon the Meditator. He’s just Jon.

So without a captain behind the wheel, how do we thread the needle to sanity in an insane world? And what about the rise of McMindfulness? How do we find our way back to what meditation is really about? Over two hours, Kabat-Zinn shared some moving stories and sublime poetry. He helped us slow down and take a breath. No doubt many therapists will walk away from this experience with some quotes in their back pocket, feeling lighter on their feet and renewed passion for their work. Is that enough?

For now, yes. After all, as Kabat-Zinn says, the mindfulness movement has never really been about him; it’s been about us. He’s been telling us all along, ever since he filmed that grainy VHS tape 43 years ago: I can point the way, but the rest is up to you. You are the source of your own divine healing.

“When you take your seat,” he says, “it’s not about pretending to be enlightened. You don’t need to pretend, because you already are.” Pivoting once more, he invokes poet Rainer Maria Rilke:

“My life is not this steeply sloping hour in which you see me hurrying. Much stands behind me; I stand before it like a tree; I am only one of my many mouths, and at that, the one that will be still the soonest. I am the rest between two notes, which are somehow always in discord because Death’s note wants to climb over. But in the dark interval, reconciled, they stay there trembling. And the song goes on, beautiful.”

“The song is you,” Kabat-Zinn tells us. “The song is life.”

The post Jon Kabat-Zinn’s New Radical Act appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Enjoy the audio version of this article—perfect for listening on the go.

For someone who’s about to lead a clinical workshop on racial reactivity and defensiveness, Ken Hardy looks remarkably unreactive, at ease even. Then again, he’s been presenting various permutations of the topic at the Psychotherapy Networker Symposium for nearly three decades.

In the past, these kinds of discussions about race and therapy haven’t always gone smoothly. Plenty of therapists—who are usually good communicators with advanced emotion-regulation skills—have raised their voices, sobbed into microphones, and even stood up and stormed out of the room. This year, the workshop unfolds against a political backdrop that includes a slew of executive orders promoting racial profiling and unlawful deportation, new policies criminalizing practices related to DEI, and landmarks being removed and renamed in ways that erase the history of Black Americans and other marginalized groups.

Yet Hardy is undeterred. In his role as supervisor, professor, and author of books like The Enduring, Invisible, and Ubiquitous Centrality of Whiteness and On Becoming a Racially Sensitive Therapist, he doesn’t just teach about racial reactivity and defensiveness, he actually welcomes it into the room. The tensions and intensity that arise allow for honest discussions with real feelings, which Hardy then folds into clinical concepts and tools, offering an antidote to our culture’s entrenched habit of avoidance and self-righteousness.

When Hardy first started giving a version of this workshop in the early ’90s, nearly all the participants were people of color, in part because it was the only training that even touched on their concerns and challenges around race in the therapy room. But it was also a respite—one of the few spaces where Black therapists in a predominantly white field could let down their guard. Today, it’s not just the racial makeup of participants that’s different—there are plenty of white clinicians in the room. The conversation itself has evolved. Racial reactivity used to be thought of as the rapid, inevitable escalation of anger and frustration, now we see it in a more nuanced way: as a complicated slow-burn of disengagement, defensiveness, and hopelessness.

“As you can tell,” a Black man in the front row says to Hardy when he invites audience members to express their version of racial reactivity today, “I’m not a shrinking violet. I’m 6-foot-1 and 200 pounds. When I walk into a room, I take up space. I do this from the most authentic place I can. But as Ta-Nehisi-Coates says, when simply being in my skin is perceived as threatening, I don’t have much control over what happens to my body. I know it’s my job to be aware of my own privilege as a highly educated person and a man, but I feel like that privilege sometimes puts an even bigger target on my chest.”

Several white therapists admit to trying to be “the good white person” in conversations about race, a self-protective stance Hardy says makes it difficult to move the needle. “When we as white people try so hard to be nice,” an older man adds, “that’s a stress response. We’re fawning. We’re coming from a place of fear. We’re defending ourselves rather than showing humility and openness.”

A white woman discloses, in a trembling voice, her feelings of heartache and regret about an interaction she had with a client of color she’d worked with for several years. The client had made a last-minute request to switch his session from in-person to virtual. When he’d appeared on the telehealth screen, he was slurring his words. “In the past, we’d touched on his alcohol use, but this was the first time he’d shown up drunk to a session,” she said. “We chatted for a minute or two, and then I just named the alcohol issue and said, ‘Maybe we should wrap up for today and reschedule.’ So we did. But the next morning, he sent me an email accusing me of being a ‘Karen.’ I wrote him back that I knew talking about this stuff was hard and I was here if he wanted to talk more, but he never contacted me again. After listening to you today, I’m wondering if I missed something important.”

Hardy’s response to hearing this story is to lean into VCR, which isn’t a throwback to ’90s movie nights, but an evolved clinical tool: validate, challenge, and request. It’s a model Hardy has created to help people stay constructively engaged through tough conversations where there’s high reactivity. Using VCR as a technique first requires assuming a particular worldview, though, one where the goal is to embrace complexity and resist the temptation of succumbing to reductionistic, either/or thinking. Given that a Karen has come to mean someone who’s quick to act with little data and lots of prejudicial judgement—usually based on racial stereotyping—the client’s reference to his therapist as a Karen was unquestionably a racial one.

Had the therapist been more practiced in adhering to a VCR worldview in this kind of high-stakes clinical situation, she might’ve thought to validate the client’s commitment to showing up for sessions, which could’ve included an acknowledgement of how he’s courageously defying the stereotype of Black men shying away from the challenging, vulnerable work of therapy. This acknowledgement, had it come before her comment about his intoxication, would likely have elicited a different response from him—one that was less reactive. Without it, the therapist became just another white person judging him in ways he interpreted as having racial—and possibly racist—underpinnings.

“Before you challenge, confront, critique, or correct,” Hardy says to her, “you find something to validate. We tend to skip this step. But it’s important to find the value in what another person is doing or saying before we challenge them. This is even more critical in interracial conversations because we live in a context of so much historical racial strain and harm. So I appreciate you for sharing your story. That’s a very difficult situation to be in, and you made a game-time decision. You were correct to name his impaired state during that teletherapy session, but I believe you missed a few critical, preliminary steps in the process.”

“Beginning with the validation part,” the woman in the audience murmurs into the mic regretfully. “I could’ve noticed something good about what he was doing first.”

“Once we validate,” Hardy affirms, “we can then move to the ‘C’ of VCR—challenge—which we always start with an and rather than a but, because you’re trying to hold complexity. That’s where we engage the other person in compassionate accountability. With this client, that might have sounded like ‘I really appreciate that you showed up today, and I’m worried that we won’t get the full benefit of our session time.’ Then we could have gotten to the ‘R,’ which is a request that we’re making of the other person. Your request, ‘How do you feel about us wrapping up for today and rescheduling?’ might have been experienced differently by your client had the other two steps preceded it.”

Hardy believes that when we’re willing to apply this to conversations around race—however haltingly and imperfectly—it can serve as an antidote to the reactive-defensive loop where all we’re doing is reinforcing old narratives and piling new harms onto old ones. He sees our culture’s perverse relationship with race as arising from the fact that the significance of race is regularly denied and dismissed, even though it organizes nearly everything we do, from where kids sit in cafeterias to the legacy of Jim Crow embedded in our legal, carceral, educational, and medical systems.

A white therapist in the audience asks Hardy what racial healing actually looks like. “I’ll give you the short answer,” he responds. “I don’t believe true healing can take place in a context of continual assault. It’s like saying, I’m going to create a space for you to heal in our abusive relationship, but I’m also going to keep beating you up. At the same time, I think we can find ourselves on a path toward healing, which then becomes an ongoing process.”

In Hardy’s view, racial reactivity is the outward manifestation of an inward event—one that often goes unrecognized. No matter what our race, we’re a constellation of privileged and subjugated selves. When we’re feeling reactive, it’s because one or more of our subjugated selves is experiencing a threat, and if we’re unaware of what’s happening, we can easily tip into self-righteousness. An added complexity lies in the fact that this threat can be multifaceted and experienced in one or more of four domains: as a threat to our identity, to our autonomy, to our dignity, or to our safety, security, and survival.

“Every one of us has a preferred racial self and a disavowed racial self,” Hardy says. “It’s important to notice which self our reactivity is rooted in.” He shares a story about a white woman at a university who stood up halfway through one of his talks and yelled, “How dare you talk about white people being privileged! I’m white, and I grew up dirt-poor!” This woman didn’t recognize that she had multiple selves, including a privileged white self and a subjugated poor self.

“I looked for a pearl of functionality, for a pearl of worthiness embedded in her comment, and I validated her experience as a woman who grew up poor,” Hardy says. “I applauded her for remaining present in the conversation even though she was hearing characterizations that seemed contrary to her personal experiences and circumstances. I said, ‘It makes perfectly good sense to me that the gravity of the poverty you experienced would make it impossible to think of yourself as privileged.’ I also assured her that based on class status, she was indeed anything but privileged. However, after validating her, I went on to challenge her by saying that in terms of race, being white was a privileged position. While all poor people suffer in our society, it’s a fact that those who are white and poor tend to make out better than those who are poor and racially subjugated. ‘What I’m suggesting,’ I told her, ‘is that you’ve been hurt and subjugated as someone who grew up poor, while at the same time holding privilege as a result of being white. I think your experience of growing up poor has the potential to help you be particularly good at understanding the plight of people of color because you, too, have experienced marginalization. I also hope that every person of color here can relate to the devaluation and degradation you experienced as someone who grew up poor.’”

“When I hear this story, and how you handled it,” a Black man in the audience says, “it feels like you’re asking me to level up even though I’m being beaten down. Frankly, I’m tired of that!”

“Your comment makes sense,” Hardy responds with genuine warmth in his voice. “And I want to point out that what you did just now is exactly what I’m recommending here. You had an emotional response to the anecdote I just shared. But you recognized your response, and you verbalized it. That’s what we all need to do more of. Because if that doesn’t happen, the emotional response turns into reactivity. And I respect what you said about feeling like I’m asking you to level up. For me, though, it’s not about being the bigger person. It’s about accessing your personal power, so others’ inhumanity doesn’t rub off on you. It’s about being the captain of your own ship, the author of your own story. Especially if you’ve been silenced, whether you’re a person of color or a woman or someone who grew up with a tyrannical parent, the simple act of exercising your voice constructively and powerfully is critical. Maybe it changes a social condition, maybe it doesn’t. But there’s a deeper purpose to using our voice. I want us to speak because there are just certain things our ears need to hear our mouth say for the liberation of our soul.”

“Amen!” a Black woman in her 50s calls out. A workshop volunteer passes her the mic, and she rises out of her chair. She doesn’t speak immediately; instead, she glances around the room. Then, she faces the stage. “I needed to hear what you’re saying about multiple selves. I’ve had a lot of painful experiences like what people have been talking about here, but I’m saying amen because I want you to keep preaching and teaching. And I want all of us to keep talking, interacting, and paying attention.”

Hardy nods. For a moment, it’s as though everyone in the room has been lifted up on a swell of collective emotion.

As the end of the workshop approaches, a white man shares a painful experience he had on a therapist listserv after the murder of George Floyd: the online interactions between therapists of color and white therapists got so heated and combative that the administrators decided to pull the plug, ending all communication.

“To me, that’s the worst-case scenario,” Hardy weighs in sadly. “When we go silent. That breeds hopelessness—and hopelessness is contagious. But hope is also contagious.”

Hope can come from different places. For Hardy, it begins with recognizing our personal power. Even when we don’t have what he calls “positional power,” the way—for example—a president of a country does, we’re still powerful. Hardy shares that he sometimes tells his clients and supervisees, “Try to spend more time defining yourself and less time defending yourself. I’m not saying don’t get angry. I’m saying direct and guide your anger to your advantage. Because when you’re defending yourself, someone else is controlling you. But when you’re defining yourself, you’re exercising personal power.”

The post Ken Hardy on Racial Reactivity Today appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Enjoy the audio version of this article—perfect for listening on the go.

For many people, trauma isn’t just a singular experience—it’s something they were born into, so ingrained in their day-to-day life that they don’t recognize it for what it is.

This is the kind of trauma therapist Linda Thai would like you to know about. Thai is especially well-versed when it comes to trauma treatment, having worked with organizations like the Trauma Research Foundation, the Asian Mental Health Collective, and Fairbanks Memorial Hospital. She’s keynoted for the U.K.’s Royal Society of Medicine and the National Education Association, as well as at the Oxford Trauma Conference and the Psychotherapy Networker Symposium. As a therapist, author, educator, coach, and storyteller, Thai is candid about her journey as a survivor of the post-war Vietnamese Boat People diaspora that dropped her at the intersection of trauma, addiction, attachment wounding, and grief.

Thai found healing and recovery in yoga, which helped her process the trauma stored in her body. She studied Somatic Experiencing, Brainspotting, Internal Family Systems, Trauma-Informed Stabilization Treatment, Havening Touch, and Flash Technique. She also caught the attention of renowned trauma expert Bessel van der Kolk, with whom she’s partnered to lead workshops aimed at healing attachment trauma. And along the way, she traveled the world, bringing her expertise to thousands.

Thai’s unique approach draws from the “wisdom portal” of her ancestors. After settling on the traditional lands of the Tanana Athabascan people (modern-day Fairbanks, Alaska), she learned to live off the land with a combination of “mutuality, reciprocity, kindness, and collective responsibility.” She and her husband live in a 550-square-foot cabin they built by hand, heated by firewood they cut themselves. They pick wild berries, raise animals, fish, and hunt.

No, not everyone needs to take up woodworking to process trauma or combat the traumatic forces of sexism, racism, homophobia, and colonialism that exist in our systems and institutions. But some of the most profound healing, Thai says, comes from time-honored cultural practices, like a reverence for nature and community. She believes we must buttress our mainstream therapy approaches and techniques with an acceptance that at the heart of healing is something more innate—instinctive practices that may feel more elemental than intellectual.

Thai recently sat down with us to share how we can all cultivate more wholistic healing practices, with characteristically honest reflections on her own journey and the spiritual act of finding your way back home.

Ryan Howes: What drew you to somatic treatment for trauma?

Linda Thai: Quite simply, yoga and meditation saved my life. I was in addiction recovery, and these practices helped connect me with my body in real-time. So I started teaching them in addiction and trauma recovery settings. I also got into Bessel van der Kolk’s work, IFS, Sensorimotor Psychotherapy. I was learning all of that even before I started studying to become a therapist. I’ve also benefited a lot from studying attachment theory and applying attachment-based principles to my work.

But I’ve never felt any of it truly captures the fullness of what it means to be human: interdependent and in inter-relationship with the world. Psychotherapy hyperfocuses on dyadic relationships: between two partners, between parent and child, between therapist and client. We may see families; we may even facilitate groups—but we’re still only focusing on human relationships.

As a society, we’ve been severed from the holistic, expansive experience of our relationship to nature, to our bodies, to our ancestors, and to time itself. You could say we have an insecure, avoidant, anxious, disorganized relationship with all those things.

I immigrated to the United States as an adult. But as a toddler, I was a refugee, first in Malaysia and then Australia. Home ceased to exist long before we left it, and there was no home to go back to. I then became a refugee from a country called The Body. It put me in close proximity to all kinds of loss, including the embodied experience of secure attachment and the full experience of being human.

This is common for all refugees—religious refugees, people fleeing domestic abuse, trans youth fleeing their families, abducted and enslaved Africans, transracial and transnational adoptees. They’ve all experienced forced displacement and disrupted relationships with themselves and their sense of home. Disrupting the relationship between a people and their home is the first act of disembodiment, and once people are disembodied, they’re easier to make compliant. That’s colonialism: the trauma of colonialism is the trauma of disconnection.

This process of colonialism happens with all waves of immigrants that were othered and all indigenous people who were invisiblized. Speaking as an Asian-bodied person, my people have colluded with the model-minority myth, because it gives us more proximity to whiteness and separates us from other Black and Brown bodies. You can learn about this process as information to put it into your head, but there’s a metabolic process of grief that also takes place within the body.

RH: Much of your work focuses on intergenerational trauma and grief. How are those connected?

Thai: In graduate school, I learned that the dynamics of a dysfunctional family are “don’t talk, don’t trust, don’t feel.” Not naming your losses, not naming your sadness, not crying: those are survival strategies, especially when our rituals and ceremonies for embodied grieving have been taken from us.

As Resmaa Menakem reminds us, when trauma is decontextualized, it looks like culture. It looks like stoicism. It looks like sucking it up, or stuffing it down, or rubbing some dirt on it. And it also looks like the shaming and blaming of emotions in others and in oneself.

Parents with unresolved losses and traumas aren’t able to be there for their children in developmentally appropriate ways. And then the children learn not to cry, not to feel. You see the individual informing the family system, which informs the culture. And now we have a society that, as Francis Weller says, is replete with mechanisms for amnesia and anesthesia.

RH: Which leads to addiction for a lot of people, right?

Thai: Exactly. When I worked in addiction recovery, we’d do a timeline of our drug use alongside a timeline of our transitions, losses, and traumas. It showed how unresolved losses often become the platform for using. Some losses, like moving schools as a child and losing friends, may not have registered as a trauma, but if your parents didn’t acknowledge the losses or provide resources for support, then it most certainly was traumatic.

In the absence of an embodied way to grieve, and in a culture of patriarchy and unhealthy masculinity, the acceptable go-to emotion is anger. In my work, we often looked at fury and rage as indicators of unresolved grief and trauma. And we bring mindfulness awareness to the physical sensations of those emotions, because that’s what emotions are: physical sensations.

RH: What does healthy grieving look like for you?

Thai: Grief is a primal human need, and it’s a solitary journey that we can’t take alone. To grieve, you need to be in community, some sort of group, where the fullness of your body’s need to express grief is welcomed. It’s important we reclaim cultural rituals that make space for song, story, movement, silence, togetherness, and aloneness. You can see these elements in African American funerals, Vietnamese funerals, funerals with people who are hired to wail—professional keeners—which come out of several European traditions.

Once we expand our conceptualization of what it means to be securely tethered and have a sense of place in the world, we can then get curious about the things that were taken from us (that we may not have realized shouldn’t have been taken from us) and the things that were given to us (that we may not have realized shouldn’t have been given to us). That applies within our family systems and on a societal level. In the latter sense, collective trauma requires collective healing.

We need to come together every new moon, every full moon—something to give us a sense of rhythm. We need to be in community as a witness, as a container. And when the fruit of grief ripens in the moment, we need to know it, to carry it. Just like how we metabolize food, when we metabolize grief, we create fuel for our growth, for our humanity.

The post Embodied Healing in a Disembodied World appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Enjoy the audio version of this article—perfect for listening on the go.

The words interpersonal neurobiology don’t exactly roll off the tongue—and for most people, they’re even harder to parse. So it’s only natural you’re feeling some trepidation as you prepare to watch Dan Siegel’s recent Symposium workshop, “Temperament, Attachment, and Personality: Individual Development through the Lens of Interpersonal Neurobiology.” Maybe you’re wondering whether this brainy-sounding training is yet another attempt to scientize the beautiful, heart-centered, and often nebulous work of therapy. You wouldn’t be wrong, but you also wouldn’t be right.

Sure, Siegel is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, a former clinical professor of psychiatry at UCLA’s School of Medicine, and the author of books like Brainstorm, The Developing Mind, The Yes Brain, and The Whole-Brain Child. But before you think you’ve got him figured out, just give this workshop a few minutes. Chances are you’ll be surprised.

“I’d like this experience to be as immersive as possible,” he tells the audience moments after walking onstage. “I want the material to be something you feel into, not just think about. We’ll be doing some things that aren’t my usual. We’ll be going on a journey.” Intrigued yet?

There’s a reason why Symposium staff refer to Siegel as “The Keynote Machine.” He’s undeniably brilliant and accomplished (after all, he’s written five New York Times bestsellers), but he isn’t slick, stiff, or pontificating. And he isn’t squirrely or neurotic the way you might expect from someone of his intellectual stature. Rather, he’s warm, gentle, and unassuming. He speaks slowly and intentionally, as if channeling the spirit of Fred Rogers—with a hint of Bill Nye the Science Guy. As comedian Chelsea Handler—who personally chose Siegel to be her therapist—will attest, he can also be deceptively witty.

“If you were born into a body, then you have a nervous system,” he says. “And that shouldn’t make you nervous! Now if you’ll reach under your chair,” he instructs, “you’ll find a take-home model of the brain. Reach down and pull your hand out,” he says, making a fist, “and you’ll find attached to your wrist is … a hand! This is your own model of the brain.” The audience laughs, and Siegel proceeds to break down the different parts of his fist-brain, including the top part, the limbic area. “This is the part that’s always learning, learning, learning,” he says. “And if I do my job right today, hopefully this part of your brain will grow.”

The Ghost in the Machine

As the workshop continues, Siegel walks through temperament (“a feature of a child present at birth, not learned through experience”) and personality (“enduring patterns of emotion, thought, and behavior that persist across all situations and stages of life”). But just as you start to wonder what any of this has to do with therapy, the revelation comes: when you understand the machinery under the hood, Siegel says—the things that science can explain—you get a little bit closer to understanding the things it can’t, like the invisible, connective energy that exists between lovers, friends, or family, or between a therapist and client in a moment of shared discovery. This connection, Siegel says, is the interpersonal half of interpersonal neurobiology—and a function of the mind.

It’s here that the essence of Siegel’s workshop begins to come into focus—and it’s also where he diverges from the scientific establishment. “For more than 30 years, I’ve been trying to translate the science for clinical application,” he says, “but also explain that the mind is not just the brain.” This was especially controversial during the ’90s, known as “The Decade of the Brain” and the heyday of the pharmaceutical industry, and he was chided by many colleagues who insisted that “relationships don’t matter unless we’re talking about the genes.” But Siegel was, and remains, undeterred. “It’s an error to say the mind is a synonym for brain activity alone,” he says. “So hopefully you realize that as therapists, you’re specialists in both the embodied and relational mind.”

Whether you call it rapport or the therapeutic alliance or something else, this invisible force that materializes between the therapist and client—perhaps the most vital element in successful therapy—can’t really be explained or measured. And therein lies the problem: 25 years after The Decade of the Brain, our field still puts a premium on processes that can be objectively measured. Manuals, diagnoses, and evidence-based treatments certainly have their place, but have we assigned them too much value? And if so, at what cost? Even if you believe the key to healing is something elemental and mysterious—a function of the mind, as Siegel contends—would you openly admit this to your clients and colleagues? Or would you hold your tongue to maintain the appearance of “credibility”? This is what makes Seigel such an excellent advocate for this invisible force: he can sway the naysayers with a little science—and once they’re listening, guide them toward the heart of healing.

Thirty minutes into the workshop, Siegel begins to make this pivot. As he’s breaking down human development—the meeting of the sperm and the egg—his voice softens and slows. “Two halves become one,” he says. “Just feel into that. Two halves become one. Of all the many sperm and all the many eggs, that’s a miracle. Of all the infinite possible combinations,” he continues, extending a cupped hand toward the audience, “something happened from this vast sea of possibility, which is you. You are … a sacred being.”

The tone in the room is different now. Some audience members nod their heads; others give a knowing Mmmm—in that way that therapists often do. Siegel continues. “This miracle that is you—and I don’t want to shock anyone with this one—gets about a century to live.” You start to wonder where Siegel is heading with this, and then his voice begins to crack.

“Twelve weeks ago, when the fires were erupting in Los Angeles, my mom had to be evacuated from her assisted living home,” he announces. “The air was terrible, and two days later, she died from a lung complication at age 95. She died peacefully, surrounded by everyone she loved: her kids, her grandkids, and her two dogs. She had a smile on her face before she passed away,” he continues, “and as she looked at us, her last words were, ‘You’ve all been so wonderful.’”

It’s an unexpected, bittersweet disclosure. Several audience members let out audible, empathic sighs. But Siegel keeps moving. He shares how he recently attended a friend’s memorial service, where he heard a song that not only made him think of his mother, but lingered with him long afterward.

“My growth edge is to try to do things that are new and uncertain and filled with fear, so now I’m going to sing it to you,” Siegel announces, raising a finger. “Actually, I’m going to teach you the chorus, and we can sing it together.” More than a few audience members exchange sidelong glances. After all, this is a conference workshop. Singing feels a little out of place. And what does a song have to do with therapy, anyway?

The Measure

This song, Siegel tells the audience, is called “The Measure,” by Bob Sima. “Not only is it amazing,” he says, “but it’s totally relevant to what we’re learning about today. Mom got about a century to live, and many of us will get even less. So what are you going to do with it? With this wild and precious life? That’s what this song is about.”

Siegel takes the microphone with both hands. “Inside this body called Dan, I’m incredibly anxious,” he confesses. “I have no training as a singer. I can’t sing on pitch, and I’ve never sung in public—not even in front of my family. I make sure the door is closed and the shower’s running. But I’m going to sing this with you.” He closes his eyes, takes a deep breath, shakes out his shoulders, and begins:

Tell me what is the measure

Of a life well done?

Tell me how do you count

An uncountable song?

A collection of your minutes,

Your hours and your days,

The number of heartbeats, breaths,

And the lines on your face.

Siegel keeps going, pinching his thumb and forefinger together to accentuate the final notes. The audience is silent, seemingly moved and entranced. Then, he pauses.

“You know, at the end of life you have nothing more to give because your body has given out, and you have nothing left to receive, and the symbol of that is your empty hands. So here’s the chorus.”

When your hands are empty

And your heart is full,

And you can smile on your very last day,

There is nothing you need to measure

And nothing you need to say

And nothing to take with you

But what you have given away.

Siegel repeats the chorus—a bit slower this time—and invites the audience to join him. The sound fills the room, gentle and melodic. The notes are a little sharper now, refining Siegel’s tune, and his face lights up with a smile as he lets the audience carry the rest of the chorus alone. Suddenly, you realize what’s happening. Between their rapt attention and Siegel’s nerves fading into a smile, brains are stirring. Pleasure and learning centers are lighting up, secreting cortisol, then endorphins, then serotonin and dopamine. But something else is happening too, a timeless and beautiful call and response that humans have been performing since the dawn of civilization. This, you realize, is what Siegel was talking about all along: this is the invisible force, it’s connection in real time.

Siegel shifts to another verse:

In the final-hour curtain call,

Did you sing the song you came to sing?

It’s the thoughts and the words and the actions you choose.

It’s paying it forward and speaking your truth.

It’s a call to love a little deeper, and kiss just a little bit sweeter.

Then, with just a sweep of Siegel’s hand, the audience sings the chorus once more before Siegel sings the final verse:

You’re an accumulation of the lives that you touch.

You’re a celebration of the wind and the dust.

You were put here for a reason.

Be of service and be a beacon.

“Was that okay?” he asks.

The audience erupts into applause, and Siegel brings a hand to his heart. “Thank you for singing that with me,” he says. “That song plays in my head every day. It’s about getting interpersonal neurobiology out into the world,” he explains. “We’re relational beings, and in our work as therapists, if we can help our clients—and our inner selves, too—achieve what Bob Sima is saying, then we can smile, like my mom did, on our very last day. We’re all going to die one day, so why not die with dignity? That’s what we’re trying to help people do.”

Truth, Inside and Out

Several weeks after his Symposium workshop, Siegel is still metabolizing things. Not just what unfolded that afternoon, but the confluence of it all: his mother’s passing, his life and work, the role of therapists, the gifts and limitations of science, the mysterious energy that connects us all, and the song that helped him put his thoughts and feelings and call to action into words. “My work has always been about trying to seek truth,” he says, “and that song is full of truth.”

A scientist with a poet’s heart, who’s unafraid to muse on the mysteries of the mind and human connection, Siegel’s internal compass has always seemed to point toward the truth. But even now, he seems to be working toward a truer version of himself, a version that thinks and acts more intentionally about what it means to live a life fully and well. He confesses that his decision to sing “The Measure” wasn’t always part of his agenda, but the night before the workshop, he had an epiphany.

“I realized I should walk the talk and show what a growth edge looks like,” he says. “Sometimes as a professional, you feel like you’re supposed to take a neutral, objective, professional stance. I certainly know how to do that, being trained as a scientist, and I can teach that way too. But I think we need to be more than that. When I got onstage, I didn’t just want to be present as an intellectual. I wanted to be present as a person.”

For now, some truths, like the intangible connections that unfold in therapists’ offices, or on hospital beds, or in conference rooms, will remain a mystery. And it’s just as likely that the field will continue to chase interventions that can be measured and proven with numbers and data. But just because something can’t be seen under a microscope—like the wetness of water, Siegel says—doesn’t mean it’s not there. That energy is a very real, scientific thing, he explains. “It’s the feeling of being alive.”

The post Dan Siegel’s Song appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Our magazine has won awards not only for its insightful articles, but for its beautiful design. Check out the digital magazine on your e-reader or any favorite device—and dive in from cover to cover!

Psychotherapy Networker’s annual Symposium is a little like being on the therapeutic red carpet. For 49 years, we’ve hosted everyone from Virginia Satir and Jay Haley to Irv Yalom and Brené Brown. Many of these pioneers of modern therapy come back year after year, decade after decade. And each time they do, we ask them: What are you thinking about now? What should the field be talking about today? What do we need to be figuring out together? This issue is an invitation to experience some of the most meaningful moments that happened in 2025 with premiere thought leaders in our field, including Esther Perel, Jon-Kabat Zinn, and Dan Siegel. Join the conversation today!

The post Flip Through the Magazine! appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Ever since I was a boy, having grown up in a country (the Netherlands) that was liberated from the Nazis by American and Canadian troops after years of bombings, mass incarcerations, starvation, and brutality, I’ve viewed the United States as a beacon of hope and sanity. After I emigrated there—and made it my life’s work to understand how people survive horrendous conditions, and how different countries deal with distribution of power, social opportunities, and the delivery of justice—it became a land of incredible opportunity for me, as it’s been for so many others.

But in spite of its abundance, there exists the painful reality that the United States performs much worse than comparable countries in some of the critical areas that define healthy communities, like life expectancy, medical care, educational achievement, social equality, incarceration rates, and support for young families trying to raise children.

Therefore, I was stunned to receive a notification from the National Science Foundation in March 2025 announcing that under the Trump administration’s new policies, dozens of terms—including disabilities, minorities, social justice, gender inequality, and trauma—had been scrubbed from government websites and documents. Studies examining these issues are no longer eligible for federal support, and grants and programs including these words are withdrawn and no longer funded. This is gravely concerning for many reasons, including the fact that it’s these subjects the U.S. needs to confront if it wants to improve its global standing. Let’s look at each:

Education. The U.S. currently ranks 36th in the world on the list of most educated countries, and it’s steadily losing its educational standing compared to countries like Singapore, China, Finland, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland, Estonia, and Canada. Approaches to education vary greatly around the world, but high-performing countries prioritize public education by ensuring that teachers are well-paid, schools have modern infrastructure, and people have equitable access.

Surely, we won’t make progress by abolishing our Department of Education. Without its macro view of public education, how can we possibly cultivate well-rounded global citizens if terms like culturally appropriate, ethnicity, socioeconomic, identity, inequitable, sense of belonging, and multicultural are scrubbed from our resources as topics of study?

Life expectancy. As of 2021, the United States had a life expectancy of 76.4 years, a marked decline from previous years, positioning it well below 50th place among developed nations. By comparison, life expectancy in countries like Japan and Switzerland exceeds 84 years. Despite spending significantly more on healthcare per capita, the U.S. has higher rates of infant mortality and preventable deaths than these nations, especially when it comes to minority populations. Black mothers are three times likelier to die in childbirth than white mothers—and roughly 80 percent of these deaths are preventable.

Why do White Americans have much higher life expectancies than Black and Indigenous populations? Numerous studies show that groups that have experienced chronic poverty, forced displacement, or systemic racism carry lasting health burdens due to the prolonged activation of stress hormones that increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, immune system dysfunction, and chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes. Research shows that these stress hormones can even cause epigenetic changes that affect stress response across generations.

General health and life expectancy are also drastically influenced by exposure to traumas like physical, sexual, and psychological assault, as well as environmental adversity. And Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) like abuse, neglect, or witnessing violence have been shown to markedly increase the risk of chronic disease, mental health issues, and substance abuse. These are urgent public health issues, and it’s hard to even begin to address them when terms like health disparity, equity, socioeconomic, trauma, Black, and female are excluded from discourse.

Incarceration. The U.S. holds 21 percent of the world’s prisoners, even though it only makes up about four percent of the world’s population. In 2022, the U.S. had more than 1.8 million incarcerated adults in prisons and jails, a rate of 541 inmates per 100,000 people. When factoring in inmates in U.S. territories, military facilities, and U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement (ICE) facilities, the number reaches more than 2.4 million inmates. The annual cost of incarceration is more than 81 billion dollars. Meanwhile, in other developed countries like the Netherlands, the incarceration rate is 65 inmates per 100,000 people. In Japan, it’s only 36 per 100,000 people.

More than 2.6 million American children have a parent who’s in jail, and at least 5 million have a parent who’s been previously incarcerated. Then there’s the alarming incarceration rate for young Black American men between the ages of 20 and 39: nearly 10,000 inmates per 100,000 Black men. For context, during the South African Apartheid, the incarceration rate for Black male South Africans was 851 inmates per 100,000 Black men.

The problem with U.S. incarceration isn’t merely a function of numbers. Countries with much lower incarceration rates tend to prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration into society rather than punishment, with the goal of helping inmates become contributing members to society. Their prison systems strive to maintain inmates’ humanity, allowing them to vote, attend school, learn new skills, exercise, and see their families. The focus on rehabilitation and reintegration in countries like Norway and the Netherlands has resulted in low recidivism rates.

These countries also have a stronger social welfare system, and provide universal healthcare, affordable education, and robust social services, thereby reducing the economic desperation that often contributes to crime. If the U.S. adopted similar policies, it could significantly reduce its prison population, but this will be impossible as long as terms like at risk, barrier, bias, Black, discrimination, race, mental health, trauma, and social justice are forbidden topics.

Child abuse. While many people associate trauma and its psychiatric diagnosis, PTSD, with veterans, trauma is tragically common in civilian populations as well: studies suggest that roughly eight out of every 1,000 children in the U.S. are victims of abuse or neglect. In most cases, parents are the perpetrators. Roughly one in four girls and one in 20 boys in the U.S. experiences sexual abuse during childhood.

Child abuse isn’t just a social or moral issue. The economic consequences of child abuse are vast, affecting individuals, families, businesses, and society as a whole: the lifetime cost per victim of child abuse has been estimated to exceed $200,000. The immediate costs include not only medical and mental health care, but treatment for physical injuries, psychiatric services, maintaining a child welfare system, foster care, child protective services, investigations, case management, police investigations, court proceedings, incarceration of offenders, special education services, and interventions for children suffering from developmental delays and learning difficulties due to trauma.

Survivors of child abuse are also more likely to struggle with unemployment, mental health issues, and lower educational attainment. They’re likelier to be involved in criminal activities, both as perpetrators and as victims. They’re likelier to experience homelessness, welfare dependency, and unemployment. The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control has estimated that the overall cost of child abuse exceeds that of cancer or heart disease. If we could reduce abuse through early intervention, education, and policy changes, it would lead to massive economic savings and a healthier, more productive society.

It’s been well established that societies with greater income inequality have higher rates of heart disease, obesity, infant mortality, drug abuse, mental illness, and shorter life expectancy. Rising inequality has recently been linked to increased “deaths of despair” like suicides, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths, particularly in countries like ours with weak social safety nets.

So, how do we really make America great? In 2000, American economist James Heckman won the Nobel Prize for his research showing that investing in early childhood development for disadvantaged children yields high returns in terms of education, employment, and social outcomes. Home visits, mentorship programs, and community-based initiatives significantly helped parents provide a stimulating, nurturing environment for their children.

His research showed that for every dollar invested in high-quality early childhood care, society gains between seven and $13 back in the form of higher earnings, reduced crime, and lower social service costs. One of Heckman’s most important discoveries was that noncognitive skills like perseverance, social behavior, motivation, and self-discipline are just as important as IQ and academic skills. His studies show that character development in early childhood is crucial for long-term success. Children who develop self-control, social competence, and emotional regulation early in life tend to have better job performance, higher incomes, and lower criminal activity later in life.

Yes, the cost of large-scale programs to implement these core components of a civilized society will be high. And it will be an immense challenge to improve living conditions, enhance access to quality education and healthcare, and implement targeted social support programs to break the cycle of poverty and thereby promote better health outcomes for future generations. But if we want to ensure a higher quality of life for all Americans, we have no choice but to address precisely the subjects that are being removed from government documents and websites, education, and clinical studies.

The post What Defines Greatness for America appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Remember the racial reckoning sparked by the police murder of George Floyd in the summer of 2020? From almost everywhere, we heard calls for immediate, transformative change in policing and other institutions, and we vowed to have more open conversations about race in our institutions. Five years later, national attention has moved on to AI and tariffs, while DEI trainings quietly go away. Far from a consensus about policing in the Black community, we see a growing segment of the country denying that officer Derick Chauvin was even responsible for Floyd’s death. It’s dizzying and dangerous.

What can therapists do other than tend to the clients in their offices, one at a time? Might we contribute to the larger issue as what I call “citizen therapists,” bringing our clinical skills to bear on social problems? In my case, it’s my couple therapy skills where I know how to promote healing by helping people access their best selves in the face of intractable conflict. Although I was already in the fray as a citizen therapist when George Floyd was murdered, my work took a new, meaningful direction as we tried to navigate the ensuing moral panic over race and policing.

I recount the story below in hopes that other therapists might see how we can bring about social change amid the good guy/bad guy dichotomy that dominates our current milieu.

****

In the summer of 2016, days after Philando Castile was killed by police during a traffic stop in my neighborhood—his girlfriend and her young daughter watching, recording—I dropped in on my longtime colleague Guy Bowling at his office. We’d worked together for years on fatherhood initiatives in Minneapolis. Guy is upbeat by nature, someone with resilience in his voice even when he’s tired. But this time he looked worn out. “I’ve got outrage fatigue,” he told me. That caught my attention.

Guy, who is Black, was grappling with what so many Black men in America feel after police shootings: grief, fear, and the sense that no amount of caution guarantees safety. “This time,” he said, “the brother did everything right. And he still got killed.” There was nothing he could tell his son that would make it make sense.

I listened. I didn’t have a response. I’m a white family therapist, not a racial justice activist or a policing expert. I’d been watching these events like everyone else—sick at heart, angry, and unsure what someone like me could do that wouldn’t be symbolic or performative.

Then Guy asked a question that changed my life: “Do you think the Citizen Health Care model could work here?”

Over the years, I’d developed and tested what I call Citizen Health Care—community-based initiatives where everyday people come together with professionals to address the chronic dilemmas in their lives. We’d done it with middle-class parents facing pressures to overschedule kids, American Indians demoralized by widespread diabetes, and low-income fathers trying to reclaim their roles in their children’s lives. Guy had been part of several Citizen Health Care projects. The idea was always to create a small group of people with lived experience, connect them with professionals, help the group build trust and insight, and then support them in offering something back to their communities.

But apply it to police officers and Black men? I spun out an idea: bring together a small group of Minneapolis police officers and Black men from the community, build trust over time, and then see if they could so something together to bridge the gap between police and the community, and promote safety for everyone.

Getting Started

Guy and I both agreed: if this project was to have any chance, it had to include male officers from the Minneapolis Police Department and Black men from the community. That was the volatile flash point, where the hurt, the fear, and the stereotypes collided. We could find community members through our existing networks. But the officers? We had no direct connections. And no margin for error. One misstep, one whiff of an anti-police agenda, and the project would die before it began.

I called Sylvia Kaplan, a friend and former therapist who was deeply connected in Minneapolis politics. She invited another contact to lunch with me—someone who also understood the inner workings of the city. I laid out the idea: a long-term, cocreated group of officers and Black men, not to hash out policy, but to build real relationships and decide together what could be done. They listened and then gave me pointed advice: “Don’t start with the police chief. Start with the police union. The officers won’t trust anything that looks like it’s coming from the top.”

That’s how I found myself nervously calling the administrative assistant to the head of the police union. I hoped she could get my pitch in front of the union leader. But after I explained the project—how it would involve long-term dialogue, personal storytelling, and joint action—she surprised me. “This sounds important,” she said. “Send your email, and I’ll make sure he sees it.”

Within days, I was meeting Officer Dave O’Connor, a union board member, at a coffee shop. He brought a police colleague. I told them what the project wasn’t: It wasn’t a listening session where officers sit silently while people yell at them. It wasn’t a program with a pre-written agenda. And it wasn’t a one-off. We would meet regularly for a year before taking action. We would start with stories, not solutions. We would build trust before trying to change the world.

They listened. They didn’t say yes right away, but they kept nodding. This was a different approach to a gap that troubled them. “We’ll run this buy some of our colleagues and see if there are green lights before getting the chief involved,” Dave said.

When I finally sat down with the chief, she’d brought along her community liaison, Sherman Patterson, a respected Black leader. I told the story of being on the streets of Washington, D.C., in 1968 after Martin Luther King’s assassination. I remembered the police looking helpless as the looting intensified, which showed how little the police can do without public support. That, I said, was what our project was about: forging partnerships between law enforcement and communities, so they weren’t trying to go it alone.

She was in. She tasked Sherman with helping us recruit officers. We were off the ground.

Finding a Rhythm

We launched with seven Black community members and six officers—five white, one Black. We decided to meet every other week, alternating between a police training facility and a neutral community space. The goal was simple but ambitious: to build relationships strong enough to hold hard truths and then act together from that foundation.

The first two meetings were cordial but tense. No one let down their guard. The officers showed up in uniform. One community member told me later that he expected to be frisked upon entering the first meeting. (He was not.)

Our third meeting was a turning point—for better or worse, I wasn’t sure at the time. One of the senior officers, a Black man, had asserted authority at the second meeting. When I tried to redirect two group members from an argument going nowhere back to our agenda, he cut me off with “Let them finish.” I felt the whole process slipping away. Too much heat too soon could derail us. If this turned into a series of arguments about who was right and who was to blame about police shootings, it would collapse under the weight of mistrust.

I didn’t sleep well the night before our third session. I knew I had to win what family therapist Carl Whitaker called “the battle for structure.” I had to be able to use my judgment as the group facilitator without being derailed.

When we gathered, I laid it out. I told them I needed their trust to facilitate. Not to control what they said, but to shape how we moved through the process. “If we don’t have structure, this can blow apart,” I said. “It’s like therapy. You need safety before you go into the deeper stuff.”

The pushback came fast. One community member said, “We’re tired of always being told how to behave in groups. We want to speak freely and not be shushed.” The senior officer stayed quiet but watchful.

I held my ground. Fortunately, I knew the community member well. “When have I ever shushed you?” I said with a chuckle. “You wouldn’t let me if I tried.” He laughed. “If you want to push back because you think I’m cutting you off, look me eye and tell me yourself,” I said to him and the group, “but don’t be sticking up for other people by saying ‘Let him finish.’” That was my signal to the senior officer, who let me know he heard me by quietly smiling.

That cracked something open. The tone shifted. A few group veterans—people who’d worked with me before and trusted my skills—spoke up in support. “I wouldn’t come to this if Bill wasn’t leading it,” one man said. “But yeah, maybe this group needs a different rhythm.” Another chimed in: “Let’s try it. If it feels wrong, we’ll adjust.”

We agreed to a basic structure. I’d bring an agenda. We’d follow it unless someone objected up front. If a topic needed more time or depth, we’d set it aside and revisit it later. And everyone would get a turn to speak.

The group took a collective breath. The session ended with a white officer saying, “When you see me in uniform, you probably think I’m just another cop. But now you know me. I’m a person, not a threat.” A community member replied, “And when you see me walking down the street in dreadlocks, maybe you won’t think I’m one either.”

We weren’t healed. We weren’t unified. But we had a rhythm. And we had momentum.

Stories, Stereotypes, and Kinship

We committed to storytelling as the foundation of our work. No cross-talk—just each person, five minutes on the clock, answering questions we’d agreed on: What were your early experiences with police officers? What were your early experiences with Black men? What were your early experiences with white men? The stories poured out.

The officers often spoke of admiration. “My dad was a cop,” one said. “I always wanted to help people.” Another remembered doing ride-alongs in high school and feeling called to serve.

For the community members, the stories were different. Many spoke of fear and humiliation—being stopped, questioned, sometimes roughed up. One described how an officer who once arrested him later helped him turn his life around. “He taught me how to box,” he said. “Saved me.”

Then we turned to our fathers. The contrast hit hard. Most of the officers had involved dads who modeled order and discipline. For many of the community members, their stories were steeped in pain—absent fathers, abusive ones, or longed-for ones they never knew. “But I’m not him,” one man said. “I’ve raised my kids different.”

The white officers seemed reluctant to talk about racist attitudes when they were growing up. So I decided to talk about growing up in 1950s working-class Philadelphia, hearing the N-word regularly. I shared how my Archie-Bunker-type father had negative, stereotypical views of Black people in general—and yet, when I saw photos of his retirement party, most of the guests were Black coworkers. “Where are the white people?” my wife asked, half-joking. My parents were perplexed; they hadn’t noticed. It was complicated, like all of us.

I could feel the Black men in the group exhale a little at that moment. It wasn’t confession for its own sake. It was making visible what they already knew: that racism isn’t always about open hatred—it’s in the air, in the jokes, in the silences.

The white officers were younger than me. They spoke about integrated schools and Black friends. I wasn’t sure if the difference was generational, or if they were holding back. But we weren’t scoring points. We were building a shared history.

Through those stories, something strange began to happen: the officers and the community members started seeing themselves in one another. Not completely. Not evenly. But it became clear that both groups were, in the public eye, often seen through a single lens.

“We’re both stereotypes,” one officer said.

That moment hit. Black men and police officers—two groups often portrayed as dangerous, volatile, dehumanized. Both blamed for systemic failures far bigger than any individual. That insight began to reshape our group identity. We weren’t adversaries sitting across from each other. We were men who knew what it felt like to be feared, misjudged, blamed. We didn’t all agree on the causes—the white officers never came around on the term “white privilege,” but the bonds of something deeper—maybe even brotherhood—started to take root.

A New Narrative

One community member stepped forward with an idea: Let’s write a shared narrative. Not a mission statement, not a press release, but a coauthored story about what we believe, what we’ve learned, and what we want for our community. Something we could share with others.

It sounded simple. It wasn’t. We spent months wordsmithing. Every sentence mattered. We weren’t writing from a single worldview. Even terms like white supremacy had sparked long debates. The officers bristled—it reminded them of Apartheid. The community members pushed back: How else do we name what we’ve lived? Eventually, we found language we could all agree on. We aimed for shared meanings, not slogans.

We called our narrative statement a Partnership for Community Safety. Not just better policing. Not just more personal responsibility by community members. Something broader and deeper: a partnership with mutual accountability. We agreed: you can’t police your way into a safe community. You need trust, opportunity, and stability. That means jobs, housing, healthcare, and education. And it means police officers and Black men seeing themselves as stakeholders in the same project, not adversaries in opposing camps.

We began sharing this narrative in community forums, one with high school students and another with a fatherhood group. We asked them the same questions we’d asked each other: What are the sources of mistrust between police and the Black community? What does a safe community look like? What could partnership mean?

To our amazement, the young people often echoed what we’d written without knowing it.

“We need more respect,” one teen said. “And we need to work together.”

We also began training police cadets. In our first session, the room was electric. These were new recruits, some skeptical, but most open. We told our story and led a conversation. The feedback forms overflowed with comments. One cadet wrote, “This changed how I think about the badge I’m about to wear.”

That moment carried us. It wasn’t a revolution, but it was a start.

A Hard Road Back

I was at home when I got the call.

“Bill, you need to see this video.”

It was one of the community members. I opened the link. George Floyd was dying on the street just a few miles from where our group had been meeting. The knee of officer Derek Chauvin was on his neck. For over nine minutes. The look in Chauvin’s eyes—the disregard, the control—was unmistakable. I felt sick. I watched it all. I had to. Not just as a citizen, but as someone who’d sat with cops and Black men in the same room for years, trying to build something better.

We called an emergency Zoom meeting for the next day. No agenda. Just space to speak.

The officers looked hollow. The community members looked gutted. Some wept. Others seethed. One said, “That could have been me. That could have been my son.”

Two of the officers said outright that Chauvin’s actions were indefensible. They didn’t offer legal parsing or departmental procedure. Just plain moral clarity. That mattered. It didn’t erase the pain, but it cut through the fog of deflection and gave some relief to the Black men in the group.

Then came a second blow.

As we processed what we’d seen, someone scanned the video footage and said, “Wait—those rookies… weren’t they in the cadet class we trained?”

A quick check confirmed it. Two of the officers who had stood by as George Floyd was killed had sat with us, just a couple weeks earlier, in one of our very first cadet training sessions. We’d talked with the cadets about trust, partnership, mutual respect. They’d written glowing evaluations.

Now two of them were silent accomplices in a national nightmare. I don’t know how to describe what that felt like. Grief. Shame. Rage. Futility. Worry. All of it.

None of our officers defended Chauvin. But some defended the rookies, noting the brutal hierarchy inside the department—that speaking up against a training officer could be career-ending. Some community members asked what good our efforts had done if these very men couldn’t act when it mattered most. “What would I have done,” one asked, “if I’d been standing on that sidewalk watching it happen? Intervene and get arrested? Or watch another brother die?”

We didn’t make any grand decisions that day. We just agreed to keep meeting. To hold the thread.

But outside our group, the world was exploding. Protests. Fires. Calls to defund the police. Our home city became the global symbol of everything broken between law enforcement and Black America. The officers in our group were taking heat on the streets—mostly from young, white protestors, oddly enough. “You’re all murderers,” they heard. Meanwhile, some Black residents—especially in neighborhoods seeing a spike in crime—told them, “We want more police, not less.” The dissonance was dizzying.

A community member called me in the middle of the night, worried that one of our officers might be at the Third Precinct as it burned. He was. Later, the officer told me he’d feared he wouldn’t make it out, that he’d have been shot or burned alive.

It was chaos. Personal. Professional. Moral.

And our group began to fray. After his precinct burned down, one officer went on medical leave for PTSD. “I can’t take another riot,” he told me. I helped him find a therapist. Another transferred to a rural police department. Two community members moved out of town. A third took a job that made meeting impossible.

Our meetings, now on Zoom because of the ongoing pandemic, were down to a skeleton crew: three officers, four community members. No more community forums like the ones we’d been leading. No police training. No new initiatives.

It felt like everything we’d built was slipping away. But we kept showing up. And eventually, slowly, hesitantly, the thread we’d been holding began to spool into something new.

Somewhere in that long, hard season between George Floyd’s death and the long tail of pandemic shutdowns, our project began to breathe again. It started not with a new plan, but with a reaffirmation: We were still here. We still cared. And we weren’t done. Those who remained often said the same thing: “We’re family now.”

Then, a rebirth. We raised a little money and all went to the Legacy Museum and the civil rights sites in Montgomery, Alabama. It gave us three days experiencing and processing the origins of what went wrong between police and the Black Community. Afterwards, we knew we needed fresh voices around our table and decided to invite new officers and community members on a second trip to Montgomery. Some of them joined our ranks, and now we’re up to 16 members. Half are officers and half are community members. We’re back to doing community presentations and will soon return to cadet training. A media crew followed us and shared our work. We’ve had inquiries from other cities. We’re still meeting, still dreaming about how to build a community that is safe for all.

***

Sitting with these community members and police officers, week after week, year after year, I came to see therapy in a new light. What we were doing wasn’t traditional therapy, of course, but it was healing work. It was people sitting in pain, telling their truths, trying to stay in relationship even when trust was thin and arguments weren’t resolved. But as community member Justin Terrel says, “We kept coming back to the table.” We knew the community and the police force depended on us staying together.

And it taught me that the therapeutic stance—presence, patience, structure, humility—isn’t just for the office. It’s needed in civic life, too, especially when the stakes are high.

There were moments I didn’t think I could hold it. Like the late night I got a message from one of our white officers. He’d been searching in the snow for evidence after a drive-by, and a ten-year-old girl had been shot in the face during the crossfire. She was his daughter’s age. He found her bloody tooth. “I can’t do this anymore,” he texted me.  “I can’t take any more intensity.” I responded back with supportive words and suggested he hold off on a final decision about the group. We would be there for him.

After another night with troubled sleep, I called two of the community members first thing the next morning. I said that one of our police brothers was hurting and thinking of leaving the group. They reached out to him—not to challenge or persuade, just to care. He stayed.

This is the brotherhood we’ve built.

We’ve laughed, too. There were running jokes about which group members were most intense, and which pairs got into the most arguments with each other. Group members teased me for my tight facilitation, for my agendas, and insisting on meeting check-ins and check-outs, and for my redirections. Over time, as trust deepened and the group matured with the process, I loosened the reins. But they knew I held them.

Eight years into this work and counting, I’m still trying to understand my contribution. I’m neither Black nor a police officer. In that sense, I have the least expertise in the room. I think my role has been to hold the container for the group, to begin and sustain their conversations. I’m not trying to change or enlighten anyone. I’m not here as a white social justice activist. I don’t use anti-racist language. I don’t mention my race at all. As one community member said, “We know you’re a white man.”

I’ve decided what I am is a citizen therapist, with a role in addressing our society’s serious divisions. And I do love these guys.

****

Adapted from Becoming a Citizen Therapist: Integrating community problem solving into your work as a healer, by William Doherty and Tai Mendenhall. American Psychological Association, 2024.

The post What Is a Citizen Therapist? appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

How do we support our clients in moving beyond limiting stories? How do we help them experience life’s rich complexity in the midst of what can feel like a never-ending barrage of emotional burdens? How do we help them focus on hard-to-face issues and make meaningful changes?

Here, some of the wisest souls in the world of psychology and psychotherapy share their answers to the biggest, most slippery questions we face—as therapists and humans.

***

TARA BRACH: How Do We End Suffering?

Clinical psychologist and renowned Buddhist teacher sheds light on the shadow sides of therapy and the spiritual path.

IRVIN YALOM: How Do We Live Our Best Life?

Psychotherapy’s most famous storyteller believes we should focus less on symptoms and more on the great, timeless issues of freedom, meaning, and mortality.

EUGENE GENDLIN: How Do We Cultivate Wonder?

The developer of the mind-body approach Focusing highlights the value of tapping into the dynamic experience of the “felt sense.”

DANIEL KAHNEMAN: How Do We Change Bad Habits?

Nobel Prize-winning cognitive research psychologist explores the role of automatic responses in human thought, and just how instinctively unwise we can be.

***

A version of this article was originally published in March/April 2013.

The post Answers to Therapy’s Big, Slippery Questions appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

It’s generally recognized that there are two ways in which thoughts come to mind. If I say “two plus two,” something instantly comes to your mind. If I say “seventeen times twenty-four,” probably nothing comes to mind immediately. You can produce a solution if you know how to do it—it’s 408—but computing that’ll take you some time. Clearly, different operations are involved in the response to different kinds of problems. That’s what I call System 1 and System 2.

System 1 is associative and immediate. In System 1, things just come to our mind. System 2 is different. We feel that in System 2, we’re the authors of our own thought. System 2 requires attention, effort, and mental work.

In System 1, we’re more aware of feelings, wishes, or vague intentions. In System 2, we’re often aware of not doing everything that comes to mind, but System 2 mostly engages and endorses what comes to mind from System 1. I sometimes describe System 2 as the relationship between a newspaper editor and a journalist. The journalist (System 1) writes stories, while the editor (System 2) looks at them to see whether there’s a major problem; if not, it just goes to print. Only if there’s a problem do you slow down and try to do something that doesn’t immediately come to mind.

In psychotherapy, you’re often trying to get System 1 and System 2 to relate to each other in a somewhat different way. It may be that System 1 is running the show in someone’s life, and their System 2 is trying to talk back to System 1, but without a lot of success. Just as being aware that you’re addicted to something doesn’t enable you automatically to get out of that habit, System 1 is the associative machinery of our mental processes, and it’s typically very hard to change it. While you can teach System 2 new tricks to some extent, System 1 is difficult to reeducate.

Strategies of Change

Still, there are many ways in which System 2 can influence the operation of System 1. In the first place, you can make decisions about the context of your life, and then the context will take over. So if there are no cigarettes in your home, you’re less likely to smoke. If there are no cookies, you won’t eat cookies. The easiest form of self-control is to restrict your environment in a way that’ll reduce temptations.

I’m not an expert on therapy, but much of what therapists seem to do is help people re-image the situations in their life and acquire new mental habits. What can make that process difficult is that while System 1 is quick to change responses to context, it’s slow to learn new habits. Nevertheless, we do learn to drive and acquire other everyday skills in life and, to some limited extent, we can acquire different mental skills, or we can overcome some habits of mind that bring us misery. For example, it sometimes happens that people find new ways to label what’s happening to them, and that new label may have different emotions associated with it. So by labeling situations in a new way, you can sometimes change your response to them. So insights in therapy, to the extent that they lead you to a different labeling of situations, can change people’s emotional response. Actually, relabeling isn’t all that different from acquiring a new habit.

The Power of Story

Our associative memory is organized to maintain an ongoing narrative of our life. This happens automatically. We don’t have to deliberately construct stories: our associative machinery is built in such a way that it tends to produce interpretations of the world, stories that are more coherent and simpler than reality. If something happens, we tend to look for a possible cause and, without deliberate effort, typically link two events to make up a story to “explain” what happened. The halo effect, attributing positive qualities in one context to someone who’s impressed us in some other way in another context, is an example of a simple associative story. If somebody is good at something, we tend to see them as good in everything. Black and white is simpler than recognizing shades of gray.

Our tendency toward believing our own stories is important in determining how we think about our lives. If you ask somebody, “How was your vacation,” as opposed to asking in a given moment of the vacation “How are you now?” you’re asking different questions to different aspects of the self. The first question is addressed to what I call the “Remembering Self” and the second question is addressed to the “Experiencing Self.” In fact, the Remembering Self doesn’t necessarily take into account what the Experiencing Self has actually been through.

The Remembering Self tends to be sensitive to the structure of a story, especially how things end. If an experience ends well, then it casts a different coloring on what went before. So it turns out that we tend to control our life by anticipating how we’ll remember something in the future. It’s the Remembering Self that’s really in charge, and it drags the Experiencing Self along, frequently imposing experiences on the Experiencing Self that aren’t necessarily the best ones.

Here’s a thought experiment that highlights the difference I’m talking about. Think of your next vacation and then imagine that at the end of the vacation you’ll be given a drug that causes you to forget the whole vacation. Would you go to the same vacation, even if you knew you wouldn’t remember it? Would you go on vacation at all? Would you go on a different vacation? Thinking about that’ll give you the idea that there’s a lot that you do because you’re creating memories, and knowing that there are going to be no memories changes our attitude about what we’re doing.

What Really Matters

Wisdom, as I understand it, is an ability to look at complex situations and distinguish what’s important from what’s not important. It’s the wheat from the chaff. Wisdom is about determining the things that really matter and what’ll make a difference in the long run. Wisdom might be thought of as our ability to allow our System 1 and System 2 to have regular conversations with each other, to be aware of all the automatic errors we make in coming to our judgments because of the built-in biases of our cognitive machinery.

I’d like therapists to think about themselves and their own reactions in terms of System 1 and System 2. I’ve spent many years studying these systems, and, with all that, I still can’t say that I’ve been successful in changing many of my own bad mental habits. The best we can often do is to just be aware of how unreliable our mental machinery can be.

The post How Do We Change Bad Habits? appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

The starting point for much of my work is the recognition that the body isn’t what we always thought the body was: a thing, a mechanical object, like an automobile that we drive or manipulate. A simple but powerful way to shift your experience of life is to take your attention and deliberately put it on your body.

At first, you may not get anything, but if you just stay there for about 30 seconds or a minute—or if you keep coming back there—pretty soon you develop what I like to call a “felt sense.” That’s a body sense of the whole situation: not just one feeling, not just that you’re angry or happy, but the whole Gestalt of what’s going on for you at that moment.

It’s comforting to be in touch with a felt sense. It’s like now you know in some immediate way that our experience of life is always an interaction of both the body and the environment. That doesn’t mean only interaction with another person. It’s how you’re sitting, what you’re inhaling, and the whole situation surrounding you. It’s the past; it’s what led up to this present moment. Most of us are still stuck in one spot or another in the past, and all of that’s in the body.

Focusing vs. Mindfulness

Mindfulness, at least as I see it being practiced by many people today, is like sitting at the head of the stairs and looking out at everything that comes up the stairs and saying “Oh, I see anger. Oh, I see impatience. Oh, I see this. Oh, I see that.” But I say, “Go downstairs. Don’t just sit there and be the passive observer. Go downstairs and see where everything is coming from.”

For their part, the mindfulness people say, “Make sure that you regularly go back upstairs so that you don’t get caught by every different emotion and every different feeling.” To which, I’d say, “Yes, but the focus needs to be downstairs, in the body.”

It’s also important not to consider the body as being somehow opposed to the conceptual, cognitive ability we have as human beings. To me, it’s a dialogue: the conceptual gives us an understanding in the body that’s important, and the felt experience of our body leads us further than we’re able to go just with what we can put into language or from our concepts about the world. So analyzing is important, but it needs to be in dialogue with the rest of our experience.

Wonder

The body has a natural tendency to say, “What’s next?” and to go forward. So when you’re working with someone in therapy who’s experienced something horrible, there’s always a part of the person that wants to move forward. It’s like when the picture is hanging crooked on the wall and something in your body tells you to get up and straighten it.

In this life, we regularly discover that there’s all this crap—the difficult experiences we try to avoid—but there’s also magnificence that we can sense. In animals, in trees, and in the rocks, there’s a magnificence that’s obviously there, and you can find it if you look out the window. But sometimes it seems far away over there, and it often comes mixed up together with the horror. That’s one of the biggest things to learn in life. The wonder of the whole thing is so much bigger than anyone can see. At this stage in my life, it’s more important to me to take it all in and not get distracted by trying to invent too many fancy phrases to describe it.

The post How Do We Cultivate Wonder? appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

One of the things that distinguishes therapy from a purely spiritual path is the engagement with one’s personal story. The therapist collaborates with the client to look at the personal patterns that play out in daily life and discover what might help in coping more effectively and finding more ease and happiness. On the spiritual path, suffering arises from any identification as a separate self. The key inquiry on the spiritual path is how is this identification being fueled and what awakens us to our wholeness. In other words, therapy’s main concern is the story of the personal self. Spirituality includes that story but emphasizes who we are beyond the limiting notion of self.

In Western psychotherapy, sharing one’s personal story creates rapport and intimacy and serves as a portal to discovering where experience lives in the body and in the heart, but many people can get fixated on the story and never go beyond it. So that’s the shadow side of psychotherapy. The shadow side to what’s called spiritual practice is sometimes a dismissal of the story and the poignant constellation of feelings and emotions that surround it. So I think it’s important to find a middle way, where you honor the story, but don’t get lost in it. The Tibetan teacher Tsoknyi Rinpoche talks about our beliefs, stories, and emotions as “being real, but not true.”

That means we need to acknowledge that our beliefs feel real in our bodies and hearts, but don’t actually translate into the truth of reality itself—just like our thought of an apple isn’t the same as biting into and tasting it. If we can recognize that, everything starts opening up. We can honor the portal, but we keep reentering the real, living, dynamic reality that’s here.

The Power of Intentionality

When clients come to me for help, right from the start, I want to hear about what their deepest intention is. I invite them to go to the most sincere place in them and say what it is they’re really wanting. That lets me know how large a view they have of what’s possible, and it helps me say, “OK, this is where you are right now. Let’s take the first step.”

The first thing I’m doing is in some way asking, “What’s your hope? What’s your aspiration?” When we aren’t aligned with our deep aspiration, we suffer. There’s a question you can use to get at this that’s pretty straightforward: “What’s asking for attention in your life right now?” Suffering is a way of calling attention to a certain part of us that needs attention.

My assumption is that something in them is longing for what I call refuge, or for really coming home to a place of inner peace and a loving heart. I think that we’re all longing for that. I sometimes think of William James, who said “All religions begin with the cry for help.” We all sense the uncertainty of this existence, so everyone of us on some level is looking for what will allow us to feel more at home in our own being. Becoming conscious of our longing for refuge—for peace, for freedom—is an essential part of what energizes our path.

Opening to the Larger Self

There’s a wonderful teaching from Carl Jung that says that whatever within us that is unlived controls us. When we’re traumatized, we’ve got unlived fear in our body that needs to play itself out, and unlived grief that needs to be grieved. When we live the unlived life, that very process opens us to a larger sense of wholeness. The process of emotional and spiritual healing is one of living the unlived life.

Viktor Frankl wrote that between the stimulus and the response there’s a space, and in that space is our power and our freedom. When there’s unlived life, we’re caught in a chain reaction that keeps us from contacting what might feel raw or intense. By pausing and becoming present, we can tap the inner resources that give us our power and our freedom. We’re able to open to the unlived life and integrate this vital energy into the larger whole of our being.

Self-Compassion

The practice of self-compassion trains us to let ourselves be touched by the suffering in our own bodies and hearts, and actively offer care. In this culture, that’s radical, because we’re taught to pride ourselves on being rough and tough on ourselves, always trying to be in a self-improvement project. I often use the gesture of the hand on the heart because it deconditions that inner armoring and helps us discover this vast feeling of tenderness that can offer care inwardly.

Our survival-oriented brain makes it hard for us to stay with the places that are difficult inside us. We don’t want to be with unpleasantness. But there’s a very wise spiritual equation: Pain x Resistance = Suffering. We perpetuate our suffering because we have all sorts of clever strategies to resist emotional pain. Whether we busy ourselves or distract ourselves or judge ourselves, we just keep away from that pain. So the practice of self-compassion means training ourselves to quiet our minds, stay with our experience, and remind ourselves to come into the body and heart.

The post How Do We End Suffering? appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

As one of only a handful of psychiatrists in Zimbabwe—a country of nearly seventeen million people that is still reeling from the impacts of colonization, war, poverty, disease, displacement, and other traumas that often remain unnamed and unaddressed—I recognized early in my career that mental health professionals were not sufficient to meet the needs of a struggling populace. This is true outside of my country, too. But while not everyone can see a mental-health professional, most people have access to a vital untapped resource: the care, compassion, empathy, and wisdom of grandmothers—the unsung heroines of the world. The Friendship Bench initiative, which I cofounded with fourteen grandmothers, has leveraged this resource by training grandmothers to be lay psychotherapists. These women weave together the fabric of community so that people’s fears, shame, and loneliness might be alleviated, so that they might realize the burdens of life are never meant to be carried alone. Unfortunately, many societies do not value the contributions of the elderly as they should, but I am lucky to have been raised in Zimbabwe, a place that honors the unique leadership of those who’ve lived long lives and have the battle scars and profound awareness to show for it.

I know from firsthand experience that sitting with a grandmother who is listening to me with compassion while sharing her own vulnerability and humanity—as we talk beneath the trees on a wooden park bench in a safe space within the community—is far different from being in a crowded clinic, waiting to talk to a specialist who might only have a few minutes at most to assess my situation. And, of course, empathy and story sharing are seldom a part of the clinical process, as I know all too well from my own experience at a bustling hospital in Harare.

In the last decade, I have become more than convinced that the answers to the global mental health crisis do not lie in more diagnoses of disorders or prescriptions for medications. Opening minds and hearts to healing is possible only when ordinary people learn to support one another in extraordinary ways. Through the program of the Friendship Bench, everyday people have created healing communities that are learning to rebuild their lives from the wreckage of intergenerational and ongoing trauma.

***

“This idea of having a nice little list of problems is very academic, but in real life, it never works like that,” Grandmother Komai—tall, dark, and elegant—looked directly at me. We were in the local clinic where we’d been meeting since the grandmothers first taught me that mental health was simply an entry point into storytelling—a timeless tool that had been forgotten by many Zimbabweans but that had the potential to transform individuals, families, and communities. “This is the part where I think the training we received falls short.” She spoke softly, unlike some of the more opinionated and passionate Grandmothers.

“Tell me more,” I encouraged her.

“When a person shows up with numerous problems and all of them seem quite serious…” Her voice trailed off.

“Can you give me an example?” I asked.

“Well, you know, like someone is HIV positive, they are unemployed, they are in an abusive relationship, they have a teenage daughter who is pregnant—all these problems and more! When you have such a cocktail of problems and you ask a person which problem they would like to work on first, they sometimes panic from sheer helplessness. That’s when you get into the here-there, here-there exchange.”

“What do you mean?”

“Kunge ka bhora kanenge kachiti uko, apo, uko, kwese kwese,” Grandmother Komai exclaimed. This roughly translated to, “Like a ball all over the place, like Ping-Pong.”

“Ping-Pong? I don’t understand.”

“Let me explain,” Grandmother Kusi offered. “So you know when the client says, ‘I don’t know which problem to focus on, all of them are important, and we say we need to start with one, and the client says, ‘Can you choose for me?’ and I say, ‘I can’t possibly put myself in your shoes, no matter how hard I try, so you have to decide which one you want to start working on?’” She imitated the movement of a ball back and forth with her hands.

“And that can go on for a long while” added Grandmother Komai. “It’s a pattern. We’ve seen it in a lot of the clients. It’s like they’re carrying many sacks of heavy stuff, and they feel they can’t put any of them down. So the trick is to help them to let go.” She opened her arms and breathed deeply, as if she were releasing a burden.

“The process of getting them to let go of all but one is part of kuvhura pfungwa—opening the mind,” explained Grandmother Hwiza. “This is how you help them to see there is another way to deal with their problems.”

“But sometimes, they resist,” said Grandmother Kusi.

“And sometimes, you just sit and listen to them talk and talk about why they can’t let go of any of their problems. You just listen, until suddenly”—she clasped her hands together in an energetic gesture—”they get it, and they say, ‘I will start with this problem!’”

After a thoughtful pause, Grandmother Jack offered, “In a way, this therapy is not so much problem-solving but really helping people to let go. Unless you can let go, you can’t solve the problems, so accepting the need to let go comes first—and that is kuvhura pfungwa.”

I nodded. “Letting go makes a lot of sense,” I said. “But what would you say is the main thing that people have to let go of, that brings them to the Friendship Bench in the first place? The challenge they most struggle to release?”

“Poverty,” replied Grandmother Kusi. This was followed by the traditional Hongu (“Oh yes!”) of agreement from the others. “People here are poor, but when you also have poverty of thought, then you are truly screwed,” she added.

“How do you deal with poverty? I mean, how do you use the skills you were taught, together with your collective knowledge and wisdom, to address poverty?” I realized I’d never delved so deeply into this topic, not even with the clinicians I knew.

“The worst is when people come to the bench and define themselves through the lens of poverty,” Grandmother Kusi said with a sigh, “especially these young people. They are so lost.”

“But why are they lost?” I wanted to understand something the grandmothers seemed to have direct, lived experience with but that still felt elusive to me.

Grandmother Hwiza cleared her throat. “From what I’ve seen, they don’t have anchors in the community.”

This elicited another enthusiastic Hongu from the group. “They want to belong; they want to have meaning and purpose. And when they can’t find that, they turn to what is easily available—the things that help to numb the mind.” I knew what she meant by this. In general, these “things” encompassed a range of substances, from alcohol to codeine to cannabis to crystal meth. There was a serious substance abuse problem in Zimbabwe that had increased in the past few years. I had seen the numbers shift dramatically, and I understood that a well-orchestrated initiative meant to quash Zimbabwe’s ruling party’s opposition in primarily urban areas by eradicating slums and illegal housing—a movement known as Murambatsvina—probably had something to do with it.

“This is why kuvhura pfungwa is important—because when your mind is open, you see clearly and you can focus on one thing at a time,” Grandmother Hwiza concluded.

It made absolute sense. As a psychiatrist, I understood the importance and power of asking a client to slow down and breathe to halt a cascade of catastrophic thoughts and allow them to focus on what was immediate and present. I was moved by the grandmothers’ understanding of this process and their ability to be with someone under duress.

Grandmother Jack piped up. “The three most relevant steps that help us to address these issues are kuvhura pfungwa (opening the mind), kusimudzira (uplifting), and kusimbisa (strengthening). These are the three most important pillars of the therapy we provide on the bench!”

Grandmother Kusi nodded. “And when we use these terms, it removes the stigma that is associated with going to, say, a psychiatrist like you,” she added, gracing me with a playful smile. “These people feel a lot more comfortable sitting on a wooden bench and talking about their life challenges with a grandmother, using language they can identify with.”

I thought about how I’d initially been skeptical of the grandmother’s capacity to reserve their judgments against LGBTQ people or sex workers—people who were already marginalized by their communities because of traditional attitudes or simple ignorance. But I understood that even when the grandmothers laughed or gossiped, they took their responsibility as stewards of their community’s mental health very seriously. I also came to realize that many of the concerns I’d had were not as applicable to a community in Zimbabwe as I’d initially believed. Over and over again, the grandmothers would insist that my use of terms like “LGBTQ” and “sex workers” were Western labels for identities that had existed in Africa since time immemorial.

The grandmothers, through decades of lived experience, had developed an internal compass, a culturally rooted system to navigate through the emotional and psychological issues presented to them—a higher level of psychological consciousness, if you like. They possessed an ability to intuitively see the link between feelings, thoughts, moods, and behavior and to apply this intuitive ability in their problem-solving therapy. They also understood that a shift would come through breaking the cycle of negative thoughts and feelings at the behavior level by scheduling activities, such as gardening or going to local community clubs, that would lead to positive, rewarding behavior. I had little doubt that many of them had faced the same issues they were counseling others to move through: domestic violence, poverty, disease, sexual shaming, and the list went on. I continued to be astonished by the way they could hold difficult experiences with reverence, which was perhaps how they had been able to make the Friendship Bench such an essential anchor in the community.

While they held all manner of deep tragedy with compassion, they were not bereft of levity. I was familiar with the concept of compassion fatigue, the phenomenon of secondhand stress and trauma that results from helping others who are going through difficult situations; it’s something that many mental health workers struggle with. But I marveled at the effortless way in which the grandmothers could create a safe space for their clients’ sharing without being negatively affected or letting them take a toll on their own well-being.

It wasn’t unusual for them to suddenly get up and break into song and dance when they debriefed together or when they were discussing difficult cases with me. This custom came from traditional African funerals and other ritualized events. It provided a cathartic release of any residual emotions that might be lingering — a very different approach from the Western model of sitting in a hushed room and talking matter-of-factly about difficult emotions.

And, as the grandmothers would constantly and gently remind me, “At our age, we’ve seen everything! Not only have we seen everything—we’ve done everything.” This would invariably be followed by a fit of cackles and giggles, which would in turn make me smile and soften, feeling reassured that I was in the right place with just the right people to provide the help their community desperately needed.

***

Across the globe, we are beginning to recognize that the cultivation of community is crucial, especially given the number of people who struggle with loneliness and isolation. When we remember that we are not alone—that, in fact, we have priceless shared resources right under our noses, though we may not have seen them as such or even been encouraged to value their wisdom—transformation can happen. And oftentimes, that transformation can be life changing.

As someone who routinely felt alone in my own occupation—an “expert” doling out prescriptions and advice to the less fortunate—my work with the Friendship Bench led me not only to a greater sense of purpose but to an awareness of my own belonging within a community of people who saw me as much more than the doctor with the authority to “fix” difficult situations. The grandmothers healed me, as well, by helping me recognize and address the wounds I hadn’t even realized I’d been carrying. They didn’t do this with a prescription or any kind of conventional solution, but with the medicine of empathy and listening, which allowed me a space to grieve, come home to myself, and wholly dedicate myself to a process and a protocol that can save lives—something I know, because the process saved mine.

From the grandmothers, I learned that together we are greater than the sum of our parts. Every one of us carries a powerful seed that is meant to grow and be shared for the betterment of our community and world. My sincere wish is that all of us come to understand that while pain may be inevitable on this planet, so is healing. And somewhere in the world, there’s a grandmother on a bench, beckoning you over with a welcoming smile—urging you to sit down, take a load off, and share what’s in your mind and heart.

***

Adapted from The Friendship Bench: How Fourteen Grandmothers Inspired a Mental Health Revolution. Copyright © 2025 by Dixon Chibanda, MD. Reprinted with permission from New World Library.www.newworldlibrary.com

The post Can Communities Heal Intergenerational Trauma? appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Our magazine has won awards not only for its insightful articles, but for its beautiful design. Want to flip through the pages of the latest issue? Check out the digital magazine on your e-reader or any favorite device—and dive in from cover to cover!

The terrain that therapists today are navigating is full of surprises, some of which could seriously trip them up, or worse, pull them under. If you’re regularly crossing boundaries between therapy and life coaching, how do you make sure you’re doing it ethically—in ways that won’t jeopardize your license or land you in court? If you want to grow your public-facing media presence, how do you successfully build your “brand” as a therapist without sacrificing your integrity? (Nine of today’s most successful therapists told us how they did it.) How do you avoid becoming a line item in a venture capitalist playbook if you join a mental health startup?

Join the conversation today!

The post Dive into the Digital Magazine! appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Not too long ago, when our editorial staff worked out of a brick-and-mortar building, a large, framed collage hung in a corner of our office, with clippings from 40-plus years of Networker magazine issues. It was hardly something you’d hang over your fireplace mantle back home. It felt loud and disjointed, like an old puzzle whose pieces had been jammed to fit. But like so much misunderstood art, the more you sat with it, the more it grew on you.

This wasn’t just some haphazard mishmash; it was an homage to the field’s humble beginnings, its cultural guideposts, and the strange and sometimes contradictory ideological twists and turns that had brought therapists to the current moment. Passing by it each morning was a subtle reminder of what we at the magazine have done for more than four decades and continue to do: keep an ear to the ground for the field’s next seismic shift, while also taking stock of those that have come before.

In that spirit, we’re reprinting a collection of stories from some of the field’s modern pioneers, historians in their own right, who help remind us to always keep asking: Where have we been? And what comes next?

BESSEL VAN DER KOLK: The Truth about How We See Trauma

In tracking the historical contours of our culture’s ambivalent relationship with trauma, what’s ahead for the field?

KEN HARDY: Speaking of Race, Power, and Privilege

What can our field’s entrenched reluctance to name and discuss issues of race and social justice tell us about the path forward?

JOHN GOTTMAN: The Couples Therapy Revolution

What forces created the major turning points in couples therapy?

DAN SIEGEL: Bringing Brain Science into Therapy

How have we connected the dots between scientific advances and our field’s evolving view of mental health?

The post The Ever-Shifting Norms of Psychotherapy appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

In 1978, when I was just beginning medical school, little was known about the workings of the living, dynamic brain. By the mid-’80s, CAT scans and MRIs enabled us to see some aspects of neural structure and function inside our previously opaque skull, but as I started my training—first in pediatrics and then in psychiatry—I struggled to find a way to apply my fascination with the brain to what I was learning about psychotherapy. What I sampled from the smorgasbord of therapeutic modalities—from family and couples therapy to psychodynamic methods and cognitive-behavioral approaches—seemed to inhabit a world separate from important developments in the broader scientific community—in fields like neurobiology, child development, evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, anthropology, sociology—that might advance the craft of psychotherapy.

At that time, we were taught that the brain was fully formed by adulthood. But if this were true, what in the world could we do as psychotherapists that might lead to lasting changes in our clients? The orthodox teaching in neurobiology also asserted that certain regions “gave rise” to specific mental functions, like memory, mood, and language. But if this were true, then a malfunctioning mind was due to dysfunction in a particular region—and short of giving a pill, what could a therapist do to improve that region’s functioning? Luckily, these two axioms would soon be overthrown, as we learned that the brain responds to experience throughout the lifespan by changing its function and structure, and that you could look to the connections of regions—and grow those connections—to understand how to move clients from dysfunction to function, even in adulthood.

Even so, we still widely believed in something Hippocrates had asserted 2,500 years ago: the “mind is what the brain does.” Could our mental lives—our emotions, thoughts, memories, and meaning-making narratives—be nothing more than simply neurons firing off in our head? If our mind was only a brain, we were left with a self-contained, single-skull view of mental life—which implied that our relationship with others, all the richness of human connection, was superfluous to mental functioning. Deep down, unsupported by much scientific evidence to the contrary, many therapists sensed that this simply couldn’t be the whole story of the mind.

Then came the 1990s—“The Decade of the Brain,” as dubbed by President George H. W. Bush—which brought us a new perspective on the brain as self-renewing, with capacities to rewire itself in response to changing circumstances. This went well beyond old assumptions about our innate, hardwired limitations. New findings about neuroplasticity took us beyond anecdotes and metaphors and vague theories into a more measurable science of human nature, incorporating both the biological and the personal.

For me, one of the first steps in a new, science-based view of psychotherapy came with the work on attachment theory by people like John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth, and Mary Main. Together, the different threads of their work not only showed how early experiences shape our personalities, but in a finding with vast implications for psychotherapy, revealed the central importance of a coherent narrative in people’s grasp of their own lives. Mary Main showed how if adults could create reflective, coherent, and emotionally rich narratives about their childhoods, their own children were likely to form a good, secure relationship with them, no matter what type of attachment they themselves had had when growing up. It wasn’t what had happened to them as children, but how they’d come to make sense of what had happened to them that predicted their emotional availability as adults and the kind of parents they’d be.

An equally important discovery with powerful implications for psychotherapy was the discovery of the role of the horn-shaped hippocampus and how it created the difference between implicit and explicit memory. Implicit memory is a form of emotional, sensory, or behavioral memory that doesn’t include recalled facts or place inner experience on a timeline from the past. Trauma can flood the amygdala to create intense implicit memories but shut off the hippocampus so that the horrible sensations of life-threatening events are blocked from becoming explicit memories. That’s why people with PTSD experience their memories in the here-and-now, without having the sensation of remembering them. They find themselves overwhelmed by the retrieval of powerful sensations drawn from pure implicit memory that lacks a sense of something coming from the past. This process makes PTSD survivors vulnerable to flashbacks and dissociation. It also reveals how distinguishing a past memory from present life can enable clients to move forward into the future without the fear that the past will continue to haunt them. The key is the neural integration between differentiated areas of the brain, allowing the past event to become no more and no less than an aspect of an autobiographical story that makes sense of life.

By the mid-’90s, together with a group of colleagues at UCLA from a range of scientific disciplines, I began to explore the relationship between the mind and the brain. Along with others in clinical fields, we explored ways that integrating brain functions might be therapeutically beneficial for clients, especially those who had an impoverished sense of their own past and couldn’t really feel or express emotion. We found that lots of clients who usually intellectualized their way through talk therapy responded well to guided imagery, sensate body focusing, and practice in using and picking up on nonverbal cues. Inspired by the work being done on neuroplasticity, we began to look at how therapy can catalyze neural growth to create long-lasting change. Could it be that the way you think can actually change your brain?

In the first decade of the new millennium, interest in mindfulness was beginning to burgeon in the field, offering new evidence, now measurable through advances in technology, that the way we focus attention within awareness can change our brain. Neural firing changes neural connection, and if we intentionally pay attention, this can transform the very structure of the brain. Mindfulness, we learned, promotes the integrative function of the various regions of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex. It allows brain circuits to fire together that perhaps have never fired in this coordinated way before, giving people a sensation of inner awareness that they may never have had. It can open the pathway to neural integration—the linkage of different parts of the brain—and enhance powers of self-regulation.

Almost every mental health problem—anxiety, depression, eating disorders, personality disorders, thinking disorders—are issues of self-regulation. Ultimately, the goal of therapy is to optimize self-regulation, the coordinated flow of energy and information through the major systems of the brain—brain stem, limbic circuits neocortex, autonomic nervous—and then between one brain and another. When we’re in this secure, stable state of mind-brain-body equilibrium, we can face life’s vicissitudes with some measure of emotionally calm flexibility, self-awareness, and reason.

As we broaden our appreciation of what science can teach us about the complexity of human functioning, it becomes clear that clinicians serve as transformative attachment experts, whose job it is, in effect, to help rewire unintegrated neural connections, to reintegrate (or sometimes integrate for the first time) different areas and functions of the brain—implicit and explicit memory, right and left hemisphere, neocortex with limbic system and brain stem.

The past 40 years have given us a view of the mind that encompasses an emergent, self-organizing, embodied, and relational process that regulates the flow of energy and information. We now know that where attention goes, neural firing flows, and neural connection grows. We’re finally equipped to embrace the wide array of sciences to see the myriad ways therapy can focus attention to stimulate the coordination and balance of neural firing that leads to the growth of neural integration and optimal health.

Helping people develop more integration goes beyond reducing symptoms: it helps them thrive. And integration also has its moral dimensions, pointing us in the direction of being kind and compassionate to ourselves and others. So now, more than ever, we as mental health practitioners need to be aware of the crucial importance of integration in human functioning and find ways to harness the power of psychotherapy to create a kinder, more compassionate, and integrated world.

The post Bringing Brain Science into Therapy appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

The first book to have an impact on the field of couples therapy was The Mirages of Marriage by Don Jackson and William Lederer in 1968. Its basic premise was that the problem in distressed marriages was a failure of the implicit quid pro quo contract between partners when it comes to transactions around the exchange of rewards and positive feelings. The therapy approaches at the time focused on how to help people negotiate these contracts with each other from positions of self-interest, where each person was really trying to get the best deal for themselves as individuals. The role of the therapist was to be a kind of super-negotiator and problem-solver, the idea being that negotiating the best deals for each individual would result in the most satisfying relationship. And to sweeten things up, the authors encouraged couples to have “love days,” in which they did especially thoughtful things for one another.

Neil Jacobson and Gayla Margolin, psychologists at the University of Washington and University of Southern California, respectively, were the ones who operationalized and researched this as a model of couples therapy, in which people learned to be nicer to each other through contingency contracts, communicating better, and improving their conflict-resolution skills. But this approach had a fundamental theoretical flaw: the only way you can get a really good contract is to work together with mutual trust. (We know this from Harold Kelley and John Thibaut’s Interdependence Theory, based on game theory.) So each person needs to work not out of self-interest, but out of mutual interest, where the sum of the benefits is what the partners are maximizing. Otherwise, it becomes some sort of zero-sum game where it’s a win–lose paradigm.

That was the fundamental problem in those early days of behavioral marital therapy: the notion that you could work from positions of self-interest and still get a loving contract that really helps both people. It turns out that most of the time, people will sabotage that kind of a contract because it feels like an unacceptable compromise. And not surprisingly, when Jacobson analyzed the results of this approach to behavioral marital therapy, he found very small effect sizes and huge relapse rates.

The idea that transformed couples therapy emerged from attachment theory and the belief that what’s needed in marriage isn’t better contracts, but looking at marriage for a safe haven. That’s largely the contribution of Susan Johnson and Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy, which expanded John Bowlby’s idea about infants needing a secure base from which to explore their environment. Essentially, Johnson said that is what’s often missing in couples relationships, and she designed an approach to heal attachment injuries through extending Rogerian concepts of expressing emotions and paraphrasing and validating those emotions.

Beyond that, her big paradigm shift was bringing emotion into couples therapy. Before her, influential therapists like Murray Bowen had insisted that emotions got in the way of therapy. He famously said, “I don’t want to know what you feel; I want to know what you think.” The core concept in his theory of psychological differentiation was that at the highest level of development you could control your emotions with your reason. But then Johnson comes along and says, “No, that’s wrong: you really have to express emotions and validate them. Carl Rogers needs to be brought into the couples arena.”

So by focusing on emotion and the safe haven, Johnson wound up creating a revolution in couples therapy. And even though she wasn’t directly talking about trust, it’s essential in creating a safe haven, as is building commitment. The foremost researcher on commitment has been a woman named Caryl Rusbult, who came from social psychology, not from the psychotherapy tradition. Her 30-year research program is the only approach that’s ever been able to predict sexual infidelity successfully. All other research on sexual infidelity asks people to reconstruct from memory what happened before the act of betrayal occurred, but Rusbult can actually predict which couples will be sexually unfaithful.

She concluded that the basic element of betrayal is the tendency for partners to make negative comparisons. So when things get tough in a relationship, like you have an argument or your partner is emotionally distant, if you start to think, I can do better with someone else, you’re negatively comparing your partner to real or imagined alternatives. She found that when that happens, you’re going to invest less and less in the relationship and give yourself permission to cross boundaries and start relationships with other people. That’s where commitment comes in. People don’t recognize the enduring importance of a relationship very deeply if they have only a conditional investment in it. If you’re not really building gratitude by cherishing what you have with your partner, but instead are building resentment for what’s missing, you’re likelier to engage in an act of betrayal.

What my latest research shows is that trust and commitment are both the key ingredients for being in love with your partner for a lifetime, and for having your marriage be a safe haven. These are the ingredients for not just loving your partner, but being in love with your partner. And here the work of Helen Fisher is important. Fisher studies people who are in love. When she puts them in the functional MRI tube and they look at the face of the person they say they’re in love with (versus a stranger’s face), their entire pleasure center, the part of the brain that secretes dopamine, lights up. People used to say, “How long can you be in love with somebody? It’s got to have a shelf life of maybe 18 months.” Well, she’s found people who are still in love with their partner two decades after the wedding and longer. Apparently, being in love can last forever.

While Fisher’s work doesn’t focus on the ingredients that make that happen, I think future research is going to show that it’s based on building both trust and commitment. And we already have techniques now for doing that in couples therapy. The key element in making those techniques work is paying more attention to the moment-to-moment state of clients’ physiology. To do effective couples therapy, people have to be calm when they talk to one another. And so the focus on conflict that pervaded couples therapy in its early years needs to be supplemented by calm, everyday emotional connection, where people can really talk to one another and listen and work on friendship.

Another thing we need to do is develop a system of shared meaning within the couple that has an existential base. When partners aren’t compromising in their essential conflicts, it’s because they feel as if the compromise means giving up a core part of themselves. Therefore, we have to get at the meaning of each person’s position in the conflict to resolve the majority of relationship conflicts. It’s also necessary to look at intentionally building shared meaning to have a connection that’s fulfilling and has some depth to it. It comes down to having a sense of shared purpose and meaning, something William Doherty has been writing about for decades.

Last, we need to look at the research that shows how unsuccessful most sex therapy is at evoking anything but the smallest changes. We’ve learned recently from a remarkable study—described in a book called The Normal Bar, which looked at 70,000 people’s sex lives in 24 countries—that the people who have a great sex life are doing about a dozen concrete things differently from those whose sex life sucks. It’s the same everywhere on the planet. The people who have a great sex life are saying “I love you” every day and meaning it. They’re kissing their partner passionately. They’re expressing affection in public. They’re cuddling. Research shows that only six percent of non-cuddlers have a great sex life. If couples don’t cuddle, they don’t secrete oxytocin, and their sex life isn’t fulfilling. It’s not rocket science.

The post The Couples Therapy Revolution appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

In the late 1970s, I was a Black kid from Philadelphia enrolled in the family therapy graduate program at Florida State, an institution that had graduated its first Black grad student only in the mid-’60s. I was the only Black student in the program, and there were no Black faculty. Issues of race as a factor in people’s lives rarely came up in class. If I brought it up with my supervisors, they responded, “If you want to be a good clinician, just learn the rudiments of family therapy and then apply them to whatever family you see. Don’t make race a special issue.” The entire emphasis was about generalized treatment methods without paying attention to race, class, or gender issues.

Then, through the early ’80s, the feminist critique began to expose the rampant gender-based inequities and sexism inherent in the field and the way family therapy perpetuated mother-blaming in its explanation of family interactional patterns. It made what had been previously invisible impossible to ignore. Nevertheless, largely advanced by white women, it didn’t directly address issues of racial inequality and racism, even though by pointing out how family therapy privileged males, it also exposed the privilege enjoyed by white people. Just like women, people of color were marginalized. Seeing how the field’s feminist leaders pushed boundaries and withstood the firestorm of criticism they received from the influential men in the field was both inspiring and a little frightening for therapists of color. I remember thinking that if whites could so viciously attack each other over their differences about gender issues, what would happen to people of color who dared talk openly about race and racism.

One moment at an American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (AAMFT) national conference in 1984 stands out for me as especially powerful. Feminist therapist Marianne Walters, in her keynote address, called attention to both the issues of sexism and racism by flashing on a big screen the pictures of all the keynote speakers and members of the AAMFT board of directors. She began by saying that she wanted to pay homage to the thinkers and shapers of the field, and then one by one, she thanked them by name. As images of one white male after another loomed over the ballroom, the extent of the overwhelming gender imbalance among leadership roles became more and more apparent. So albeit in a somewhat indirect way, the feminist critique drew attention to racial privilege as well.

During this period, there were certain books that succeeded in raising consciousness about social issues within the field. Although Monica McGoldrick’s groundbreaking Ethnicity and Family Therapy didn’t deal with race specifically, it succeeded in adding ethnicity and culture to the list of contextual factors that should be considered when working with families. Unlike the feminist critique, the topic of ethnicity was easy for everyone to discuss, because it didn’t call attention to structural inequities, power, and privilege. Even more importantly, Nancy Boyd-Franklin’s book Black Families in Therapy marked a crucial milestone for the field by focusing on the special challenges Black families face in a racist society. And it was practical to boot, providing tips and tools for effectively engaging and treating Black families.

Nevertheless, it was still hard to get material about race into academic journals because reviewers found it too inflammatory. I remember conference organizers discouraging me from focusing directly on race in my talks and strongly encouraging me to instead use the less threatening term multiculturalism. After all, the major power brokers of the field at the time were white. For people of color, forcing a conversation about race seemed like committing professional suicide. So some of us took a more strategic approach. I remember publishing a paper called “The Theoretical Myth of Sameness: A Critical Issue in Family Therapy Treatment and Training” as a safe way to examine the potentially explosive issue of race in a more general discussion about “sameness and difference.” I was opening a door without sounding too confrontational.

One year, in the climate of the times, I offered a session called “Breaking the Silence” that gave voice to the sense of stifling frustration, deep disappointment, and race-related pain that many people of color felt unable to openly express to their white colleagues. For people in the minority community, it was as close to an open act of defiance as many of us had come: no more walking on eggshells regarding issues of race, no more apologies for acknowledging when and how we saw racism in the field. For my own part, I’d learned a lesson or two from my feminist friends about the courage it took to be outspoken about “divisive issues,” and the importance of taking good care of yourself in the face of the inevitable pushback that comes from pointing out differences in power and privilege.

Throughout the ’90s, my process of becoming more transparent about the struggles of being a Black therapist in the field continued. I published an article in the Networker called “War of the Worlds,” in which I talked openly for the first time about the compromises people of color in the field have to make to be deemed acceptable by their white counterparts. To date, nothing I’ve written for the Networker, or any other publication, has generated more personal letters—strongly supportive as well as scathingly critical—than this one. Then in 1996, I gave a keynote at the Networker Symposium. It was the first time that a nonwhite clinician had delivered a major plenary address at a national family therapy meeting of such a size.

Pleased as I was to receive the invitation, I also felt the tremendous burden of responsibility as I began my talk extemporaneously by describing all the voices of Black people for whom I felt I was a representative. It was a very emotional experience for me. Designed to engage the broadest possible audience, my theme was the sense of “psychological homelessness” that so many people of color struggle with as they try to fit into different, mutually exclusive worlds, leaving them without a safe place, a true home. Women, LGBTQ folks, immigrants, estranged daughters and sons, and emotionally cut-off parents could all relate to what I was saying.

Thankfully, by the late ’90s, an increasing number of training programs began developing curricula that specifically addressed issues of race and social justice. But while there’s been a positive shift in our awareness of race, the discomfort and awkwardness in addressing it is still prevalent. Regardless of the venue or the participants, conversations about race are difficult to facilitate. People of color fear being judged as race-obsessed, angry, and hypersensitive. And whites often fear being misunderstood, perceived as a racist, or saying something that will trigger the anger of people of color. For the most part, a fundamental attitude of mutual mistrust underlies discussions of race between Blacks and whites, making meaningful interactions across the great divide of race hard to achieve. It takes both will and skill to address the issue of race, and even though the will has generally increased, the skill is still lagging behind.

Over the years that I’ve been facilitating these kinds of interactions, I’ve realized that the most successful ones must start with the soul work of seeing, being, and doing. Seeing is about our increasing ability to recognize how much the color of our skin defines our day-to-day experience. The next step is being able to engage in a process of self-awareness about what it means to be white or a person of color and what role we choose to play in addressing the racial inequities we see around us. The final step is, of course, the most difficult—to actively engage in doing something about them.

If ever there were a critical moment for constructive and courageous conversations about race, power, and privilege in our practices, communities, and the broader society, this is it. Personally, I feel affirmed in the credo that whatever our training or orientation, our work as clinicians should ultimately be devoted to healing the world, even if it means addressing that huge task in 50-minute intervals at a time.

The post Speaking of Race, Power & Privilege appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

Most people think the field of trauma treatment began around 1980, when PTSD was first included in the DSM as a result of a movement among Vietnam veterans. But well over a hundred years before that, the work of Charcot and Pierre Janet at Salpêtrière in Paris, articulated most of the relevant issues about trauma that are being rediscovered today, such as getting stuck in reliving trauma, dissociating, and having trouble integrating new experiences and going on with one’s life.

Janet used hypnosis with hospitalized trauma patients to help them put the experience to rest, but his work was largely eclipsed by other developments, in part because fully recognizing the devastating impact of trauma tends to be too overwhelming for mental health professionals and politicians alike. Another example happened with Sigmund Freud and his mentor, Joseph Breuer; they wrote outstanding papers on the nature of trauma in the 1890s, but they later repudiated them because suggesting the occurrence of incest in upstanding middle-class families in Vienna was so disturbing to their colleagues.

Ever since, trauma has had a history of cycling between being recognized for the devastating, long-term role it can play in people’s lives and then going underground in the face of resistance to that idea. The horror of trench warfare led to wide recognition of the symptoms of shellshock during World War I, but in 1917 the British general staff put out an edict forbidding the military to use the word shellshock to describe the condition, because they assumed it would undermine the troops’ morale. The same thing happened after World War II, when the world quickly forgot the price that we pay for sending people into combat. Yet all the symptoms that we read about in the newspaper—suicides, drug addictions, family violence, homelessness, and chronic unemployment—have been well documented after every war within modern memory, starting with the American Civil War.

Nevertheless, in the 1980s, as a result of the work of many people like Charles Figley—a Marine vet from Vietnam, who wrote a book called Trauma and Its Wake and started the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies—trauma began to attract more and more attention in mainstream psychiatry and psychology. Around that time, Judith Herman and I began to study the relationship between borderline personality disorder and self-injurious behavior and early years of trauma and neglect at the hands of caregivers. However, in the early 1990s, just as had happened in 1902, 1917, and 1947, as the study of the trauma movement began to gather steam, there came a backlash.

In this case, it came in the form of the false memory movement, which tried to discredit the stories of abuse that our clients told us by calling them the result of therapists’ systematically implanting false memories in their minds. Much of this movement was fueled by the Roman Catholic Church as it was facing innumerable charges of priests’ sexual abuse of children, and by psychologists who could make a good living in forensic settings disputing the allegations by victims of sexual abuse. After the suits against the church were settled, the false memory industry disappeared with it.

One of the results of the controversy surrounding this particular backlash was that the trauma field got bifurcated into two parallel areas of development, with basically all the research funding being directed to the military and veterans. The other area of research—child abuse and neglect and women’s studies—was underfunded and therefore unable to garner enough high-quality studies to determine scientifically how best to treat this population. As a result, our field became one of passionate claims but little solid scientific evidence.

Nonetheless, some key developments (or in most cases, rediscoveries) have advanced trauma treatment recently. One has been the recognition of the role that dissociation plays in the aftermath of trauma and how, in various ways, treatment must address the personality structures that can compete or alternate with each other when someone is traumatized. Another major advance was the emergence of EMDR as the first approach that showed that we didn’t need to rely on drugs or the traditional talking cure to get traumatized people to leave their traumatic memories behind. Similarly, body psychotherapists have recognized that “the body keeps the score” when it comes to trauma and have revitalized bottom-up approaches like Somatic Experiencing, Hakomi, and Sensorimotor Psychotherapy to help shut-down people get unstuck from the fight/flight/freeze response.

Through neurofeedback, we’re exploring the capacity to rewire brains that are stuck in freeze and terror, and our first published studies of this process show how traumatized children and adults can learn to change how their brains regulate themselves. We’ve rediscovered that true change is best made when the mind is open. Mindfulness enables people to become attentive to their body and can enable them to feel safe. In fact, our NIMH-funded research shows that it looks as if yoga is more effective than any medication for treating PTSD.

Being able to be mindful is a necessary precondition for change. Hypnotherapists have long known that getting people into a trance state can facilitate the integration of trauma into their overall consciousness. More recently, Internal Family Systems and approaches that use mind-altering drugs like MDMA have demonstrated how to get people into altered states of consciousness where they can actually observe themselves and develop a sense of self-compassion that enables them to integrate their dissociated self from the past into in a calm state of mind in the present.

While all this has been going on, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has accumulated the most research support, even though we know that the whole cognitive part of the brain shuts down when people are traumatized, triggering the primitive survival part of the brain. So using CBT with trauma is like telling somebody with an amputated leg to take up running. It can certainly give people a sense of perspective on their coping options when they’re in the right frame of mind, but it has limited value with severe trauma.

The most commonly used CBT approach to trauma is exposure therapy, which assumes that desensitizing someone to something that used to trigger them is the best way to help them be less affected by their memories. The problem is that desensitization leads to a global lack of feelings and engagement, so when you get desensitized from your trauma, you also get desensitized to joy, pleasure, engagement, and everything else going on. Desensitizing people shouldn’t be the goal of treatment: rather, we should help traumatized clients realize that Yes, this happened to me years ago, but not today; today is a different day, and I’m no longer the person I was back then. That kind of integration involves a neural network different from the neural network of desensitization.

My hope for the field of trauma treatment is that we learn how to help people bring their imaginations more fully to bear on their possibilities. In our culture, we too often rely on swigging alcohol and taking drugs to make ourselves feel better, more open. Perhaps the most important contribution the therapy world, including the field of trauma, can make to the wider culture is to give people greater access to their innate self-regulatory systems—the way that they move, breathe, sing, interact with each other—so they can discover their natural resources to regulate themselves in a different way, especially when life gets challenging.

The post The Truth about How We See Trauma appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

The healthcare field needs intensive care.

Not only is it a field filled with high-stress workdays, legendarily rigorous training programs, sparse staff-to-patient ratios, and mountains of bureaucracy to navigate at every turn, but it’s also a field where exposure to physical and emotional trauma is as regular as the sound of beeping machines on an ICU unit. Nonetheless, doctors and nurses are expected to remain calm and dispassionate. Feelings aren’t simply discouraged: they’re seen as a job hazard.

And yet these health care professionals, however heroic, are also human. The work they do impacts them. They need help processing difficult experiences and coping with stress just like the rest of us—or maybe even more than the rest of us. Which begs the question: Who heals the healers? And how?

Jessi Gold, a popular psychiatrist who’s been featured in The New York Times, HuffPost, Time Magazine, and Forbes—and is also the chief wellness officer of the University of Tennessee System—started asking herself these questions during the pandemic. Gold’s recent book, How Do You Feel? One Doctor’s Search for Humanity in Medicine, chronicles her experience helping physicians, nurses, and medical students through that challenging time—along with what she discovered while seeking balance amid intense professional burnout.

Recently, she and I sat down to talk about the state of the healthcare field and how to best help our fellow providers in the medical profession.

Ryan Howes: Why is the medical profession so hard on medical professionals?

Jessi Gold: Medicine has long been one of these fields in which having feelings and being impacted by our work is seen as weakness. Vulnerability isn’t a goal doctors and nurses are supposed to strive for. Rather, it’s seen as a barrier to moving forward in your career. Having feelings is seen as selfish. For example, if I’m your doctor, and you tell me you’re dealing with something hard that strikes a chord in me, or if I see a patient die and it affects me emotionally, then it takes away from you. We learn that’s not what a good doctor does.

RH: So there’s a belief that you’re serving the patient by denying your own humanity.

Gold: The field values hard work and putting other people before oneself, which is understandable. But it often leads to healthcare professionals not feeling, not taking days off, not sleeping, not eating, and not peeing. There are things to admire about selflessness, but absolute selflessness isn’t sustainable. You can’t just give and give. After a while, there will be nothing left to give.

RH: Obviously, we don’t want brain surgeons to be immersed in their feelings in the middle of surgery. But when surgery is done, how can they switch their feelings back on?

Gold: You can detach from your feelings and reactions in the moment to do your job well. The danger arises when your job becomes your existence.

There’s a false assumption that we can detach from our feelings all the time and somehow come out okay. We start that way because we have to, and then it feels like that’s the only way to function because that’s what’s modeled all around us. We worry that if we don’t do that, we won’t be able to handle our jobs. In my book, I share about a time when I was very excited because I didn’t cry in front of a patient, and my therapist was like, “Why is that a good thing? Why are we high-fiving over this?”

I also tell a story about a patient of mine who was an ER doctor who went to an opera, and someone in the audience died. Everyone else was horrified, but she just wanted to get back to the opera. For her, it was like, “Oh, here’s death again.” We become really detached from normal human reactions to things that most people would find very disturbing.

RH: Is it true that going to therapy can have negative career repercussions for medical professionals?

Gold: It is really not true anymore, but you’ll always find someone with a story about a doctor who tried to take care of their own mental health and was somehow punished for it by having their license revoked. This may have happened a lot in the past, when medical licensing boards didn’t understand mental health conditions or how they played out in the workplace. But over time, most of them have changed their mind about the value of mental health treatment. Organizations like the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation are pushing to change the wording
on some licensing applications, so it doesn’t inadvertently punish people for going to therapy. After all, it’s supposed to evaluate whether you’ll hurt a patient based on your mental health, not whether you’d benefit from therapy. In fact, I was told to go to therapy during my training as a psychiatrist.

Sure, someone can say, “You shouldn’t be practicing while you’re depressed.” But all that means is that it’s in your own best interest—and the best interest of your patients’—to notice signs of depression or burnout early and address them.

Right now, we tend to take a stop-the-bleed approach to care. Also, we tend to overwork to compensate for all kinds of other feelings, because when we overwork, we get praise. It’s the culture we live in. However, we can help people recognize that the more they take care of themselves, the better they are at their job. Taking care of themselves shouldn’t be viewed as a last resort, the way it is in the medical field.

In this culture, we’re all starting at 50 percent burnout, so chances are you can look around and say, “Jimmy looks sadder than me, and Frank isn’t sleeping either, so I think I’m good.” But your measurement scale is out of whack.

RH: How do you distinguish between regular workplace stress and burnout, particularly for healthcare workers and therapists?

Gold: Stress, in general, is a physical response that helps you get stuff done. If you have a test, the stress boosts your adrenaline, and you finish the test. The stress is temporary. Burnout, on the other hand, tends to stick around and decrease your sense of personal accomplishment. You feel ineffective, emotionally exhausted.

RH: What advice would you give a therapist who’s starting to treat a nurse, physician, or other healthcare worker?

Gold: First, I wish there was a certificate program for treating healthcare workers because we’re a weird subculture. Healthcare workers don’t like to talk about how they got to where they are, so knowing a little about their training and what they do in residency—sort of like with any cultural competency—avoids putting them in a situation where they have to educate you or re-explain stuff. What I hear a lot from healthcare workers is that the therapists they like are the ones who don’t give them suggestions that make no sense given their workplace. For example, you can’t tell them to sleep. That’s not helpful. You can say, “What’s your sleep look like?” But you can’t say, “My recommendation is you find a way to get eight hours of sleep a night.” They can’t do that. It’s more important to figure out what they can do.

Teaching quick skills is helpful—deep breathing or other relaxation tools or tips for self-compassion at work. CBT-based exercises are often quick and helpful. It also helps to recognize this population needs you to have some flexibility when scheduling sessions, because their schedule can be erratic. When I was in residency and on night float, my therapist saved me a morning time slot, and if I couldn’t make it, she understood and waived the missed session fee. Recognize that your healthcare worker clients want to come to therapy, but might need an after-hours time, or a weekend slot.

If you want to see healthcare workers, put that on your therapist profile and on your website, even though it’s not an official specialty. Also, understand that healthcare workers are coming from a field that doesn’t talk about mental health often, so it’s hard for them to even be in therapy. Be patient with them. They’re usually not comfortable with feelings, so you’ll get a lot of alexithymia, avoidance, and intellectualization. They might be uncomfortable with the process of therapy for a while. I was—and sometimes still am!

The post Medical Professionals Need Intensive Care appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>

For decades, therapy worked a certain, predictable way. The practice of therapy consisted of: a therapist, with a caseload, on a structured path from graduate school to licensure to practice. The models evolved, but the profession itself remained a stable, if not always lucrative, career.

Now, that stability is unraveling, and therapists are feeling it in ways big and small. Caseloads are climbing. Colleagues are leaving. The jobs that once seemed like safe bets, like W-2 salaried roles at mental health companies, or even contractor gigs at large platforms, are becoming riskier, subject to mass layoffs or shifting pay structures. Even solo practitioners are feeling the shift as they watch clients fighting for the insurance reimbursements they were promised, while trying to keep a steady flow of new referrals. There’s a real sense that the field itself is tilting in a new direction.

Blaming this change on just one thing would be oversimplifying it. Insurance companies have long dictated the financial realities of therapy, and the pandemic drove demand for mental health care to unseen levels. The introduction of coaching and the increase in societal loneliness are players in this change, too. But one of the biggest forces in recent years has been venture capital.

I want to be clear: venture capital didn’t single-handedly create this moment. But it is one of the reasons therapy feels different. And if therapists want to have a say in where the field is going, they need to understand how these financial forces are reshaping the work they do every day.

When Therapists Become a Line Item

One morning in 2023, a therapist I know at a promising, investor-backed mental health platform woke up, logged in for her first session of the day, and found her accounts disabled. No email, no warning—just gone.

By the time she realized she was out of a job, her clients already knew. They’d received a boilerplate email: Their therapist was “no longer with the company,” but not to worry—a new one had been assigned. No mention of the trust they’d built. No acknowledgment of the months of hard work. No option to say goodbye.

If I hadn’t been following the mental health tech space, I might have assumed this was some bureaucratic mistake, maybe a one-off glitch in the system. But it wasn’t. This kind of thing has happened at multiple mental health startups in the past few years. They’re not mistakes—they’re business decisions.

The Mental Health Startup Boom

When I first moved into copywriting—writing the emails, blogs, and other materials mental health companies use to communicate—after years as a licensed clinical social worker, I was very hopeful that mental health startups could be part of the solution. The system was broken, and these companies promised to fix it—expanding access, lowering costs, and making therapy available to people who had never been able to afford or find it before.

I’ve met a lot of mental health company founders, and they all start out with good intentions. But once investor funding gets involved, things start to shift. The pressure to grow fast, cut costs, and scale in a way that looks good on paper takes priority. Instead of focusing on continuity of care, clinician support, or ethical business practices, they start optimizing for what investors want to see—rapid expansion, streamlined operations, and a business model that promises big returns. No founder sets out to deprioritize care, but at some point, the demands of profitability start making those decisions for them.

A friend of mine had this model turn his life upside down. He was the top clinical leader at a mental health company that actually prioritized high-quality care, clinician well-being, and strong client outcomes. And it was working. The company was growing, therapists were staying, and clients were getting real, consistent care.

Then, investors came in. The new executive the investors installed didn’t see the point of clinical oversight—literally didn’t understand what it was or why it mattered—and didn’t bother to ask. So they fired him.

It only took three months for things to start falling apart. Churn was up, therapists were leaving, and clients weren’t sticking around. He had flagged these risks before he was fired, and everything he had warned them about was happening.

They hired my friend back to try to undo the damage, but it might be too late. The company is still operating within the model investors pushed for—one designed for rapid growth, not sustainable care. Fixing it would mean making decisions that don’t fit the VC investor model, and from everything I’ve seen, making those kind of decisions isn’t how the story of mental health tech companies plays out.

The VC Playbook: Scale, Squeeze, Sell

In 2021, mental health startups raised $5.5 billion across 324 deals. With the pandemic, virtual care exploded, and investors took notice. Suddenly, mental health was a hot market. New companies flooded the space, all promising to “revolutionize mental health” or “democratize therapy.”

At first glance, this seemed like a win. More funding meant more access, more therapists, more options for clients. But the money came with expectations.

VC firms don’t invest in slow, steady growth. They look for businesses that can scale quickly and generate massive returns. In industries like tech, where a single product can be sold infinitely with little additional cost, that kind of growth is possible. Think, for example, of Adobe or Canva. The initial costs of building this kind of software-as-a-service (SaaS) is high, but then the product can be sold for very little additional cost. Therapy, though, isn’t a SaaS product. It’s labor-intensive, requires long-term relationships, and doesn’t come close to the 70% profit margins that investors expect.

That disconnect set the stage for what happened next. Once venture capital entered the space, companies weren’t just focused on expanding access—they had to expand fast enough to satisfy investors, and they did so using the tried and true VC playbook: First, companies push for rapid expansion, hiring as many therapists as possible and onboarding new clients at an unsustainable rate. Then, when growth slows, they turn inward, looking for ways to increase profitability—cutting therapist pay, increasing caseloads, automating wherever possible. Finally, when it’s time to cash out, they make the company look more profitable on paper, even if that means gutting clinical teams and scaling back quality of care.

A therapist I spoke with joined Ginger just as they were merging with Headspace. She was leaving private practice because she wanted income stability and benefits, which her new role provided. But as time went on, the demands escalated. Caseload requirements increased, burnout set in, and the job that was supposed to be a better alternative started to look just as unsustainable as everything else. After that experience, she left the field entirely for several years.

And she wasn’t alone. Her story is one I’ve heard over and over from therapists across the country. Clinicians take jobs at well-funded startups hoping for stability, only to find themselves burning out just as fast, or faster, than they would have in private practice.

This cycle doesn’t just affect individual therapists. In the past few years, multiple mental health startups that had made grand promises of fixing therapy have quietly shut down, sold off, or dramatically cut their clinical teams in a bid to stay profitable. The ones that remain have largely made the same calculation: it’s more important to please investors than to protect therapists or the clients they serve.

Who Decides What Therapy is Worth?

For therapists hoping to escape the VC model, the alternatives aren’t much better.

Venture-backed startups have just started reshaping mental health care in ways that prioritize growth over quality, but insurers have been setting the financial terms for decades. And their incentives are just as misaligned.

Insurance companies don’t make money by paying for therapy; they make money by controlling how much therapy they have to pay for. That means keeping reimbursement rates low, narrowing definitions of “medically necessary” care, and making it harder for providers to bill for anything beyond short, standardized sessions.

A chief clinical officer I spoke with has spent years fighting to keep clinicians at the center of care while ensuring they’re paid fairly. But in the last few months, that fight has become nearly impossible. Payors keep cutting reimbursement rates, making it harder and harder to sustain a model where therapists can afford to stay. As a result, therapists burn out, leave, and access to care shrinks. (Which, I suspect, is exactly the point.)

Stuck between the heavyweights of VC companies and payors, therapists have an impossible choice: take insurance and work unsustainable hours to make a living, go private-pay and risk shutting out lower-income clients, or work for a venture-backed company and accept the trade-offs—lower pay, less autonomy, more burnout.

Why Therapists Have Been Left Without Power

This isn’t just a problem of bad employers. It’s a profession-wide issue that starts in graduate school.

When you’re a therapy student, nobody sits you down and explains how insurance reimbursement actually works, or what to look for in a contract before you sign it. New therapists know all about attachment theory, cognitive distortions, and trauma-informed care, but they rarely know how to negotiate a contract, challenge an insurance denial, or figure out whether a company’s business model is sustainable.

That knowledge gap isn’t purposeful, but it is convenient. It makes therapists easier to exploit. Companies know that if therapists don’t understand the financial side of the industry, they’ll accept lower rates, sign contracts with restrictive non-compete clauses, and give up autonomy without realizing what they’re losing.

Not only do therapists not like what’s happening, they have little recourse. Unionizing isn’t a viable option for most therapists because they’re classified as independent contractors, making collective bargaining nearly impossible. High turnover makes organizing difficult for therapists who are employees.

It’s the same story that played out in medicine, pharmaceuticals, and law. Private equity firms and corporate consolidations swallowed up independent practices and turned highly paid professionals into low-control employees. Now, it’s happening to therapy. The question is whether therapists will fight to keep control.

How Therapists Can Push Back—Without Falling into the Guilt Trap

A lot of therapists have been told the same thing: if you care about access, you shouldn’t care about money. It’s a useful message for the people profiting off your labor, but it’s not true.

For years, therapists have been put in an impossible position. Either you take low-paying insurance rates and overload your schedule, or you go private pay and feel guilty about it. Either you work for a VC-backed company with steady referrals but little control, or you try to make it on your own, knowing you might not be able to afford to see lower-income clients.

The system depends on therapists believing these are the only choices. It keeps labor costs down when clinicians stay in jobs that don’t pay enough, accept reimbursement rates that don’t cover the cost of care, or take on extra clients just to make ends meet.

One way out is to stop playing by those rules. How?

Step One: Understand the Market

Venture-backed startups and insurance payors don’t make decisions on best guesses. They operate within financial models designed to maximize returns—whether for investors, executives, or shareholders. Understanding those models is one of the best ways therapists can avoid being undervalued.

To start, look beyond salary numbers. If a company isn’t charging therapists and isn’t making most of its revenue from client fees, then who’s paying? If a company’s main funding comes from employers or insurers, then those are the stakeholders it has to keep happy—not therapists or clients.

Therapists should always expect that decisions will be made to maximize profits for investors. That’s how venture-backed businesses work. But if therapists are the primary customers—paying for access to referrals, administrative support, or a network—then the company’s success depends on keeping them happy. In those cases, therapists have leverage, because their satisfaction directly impacts the company’s bottom line.

This means therapists shouldn’t automatically distrust companies that charge them fees. In fact, charging therapists directly can be a protective factor. If the money comes from an employer or large insurance contracts instead, priorities shift. What matters is not just whether a company charges therapists, but whether its financial structure aligns with supporting them.

Then there are contracts. Therapists should ask: who really benefits from the terms? Noncompete clauses, productivity quotas, and ownership structures often favor investors and executives over clinicians. If a company is scaling rapidly, what does that mean for workload expectations? If it’s paying higher-than-average rates, how sustainable is that model? If a platform keeps its fees low for clients, what’s the tradeoff for therapists?

And finally, there’s the question of who to hold accountable. Some companies are squeezing every dollar for profit, paying therapists as little as they can while investors collect returns. Others are trying to do the right thing while stuck within an insurance system that dictates how much they can pay. Before blaming a company for its rates, it’s worth asking: Is it keeping pay low to boost margins, or is it operating within financial limits imposed by insurers? Who’s really setting the rates—the company, the payors, or the investors behind it?

The less secretive this system is, the harder it becomes for companies to sell therapists on bad deals. Therapists don’t need to avoid every company that charges them. They just need to ask where the money is going, who is making decisions, and what that means for their work.

Step Two: Leverage Labor—Even Without a Union

Therapists don’t have traditional labor protections, but that doesn’t mean they’re powerless. Collective action doesn’t have to mean unionizing or organizing protests. Sometimes, it’s as simple as making informed decisions about where to work—and making sure companies know that therapists are paying attention.

That’s the idea behind The Fit Check for Therapists, a Facebook group I created where therapists compare pay, working conditions, and company policies. Too often, therapists take jobs without knowing how their rates compare to others or what’s buried in the fine print of their contracts. But knowledge is leverage. When therapists can see, side by side, which companies pay fairly, support clinicians, and uphold ethical standards—and which ones don’t—companies have to compete for labor.

The goal isn’t to expose bad actors but to move therapists toward better ones. When a company that pays and treats clinicians well starts attracting more and more therapists, others are forced to adjust or risk losing their workforce. And when new companies enter the space offering even better conditions, the cycle continues. The power is in the shift of labor flowing toward companies that actually invest in clinicians, forcing the others to either change or sink.

Many industries have forced companies to evolve by shifting labor toward better models. Doctors, pharmacists, and even freelance writers have leveraged transparency and competition to drive up wages and improve working conditions. Therapists can do the same—not by waiting for companies to change, but by making them compete for therapist support.

Step Three: Make Your Work Sustainable—Without Feeding the System

For many therapists, the most practical way forward is to go private-pay. There’s a narrative that says it’s our duty to sacrifice our financial well-being to help improve access. But the gameplan isn’t to vaguely underprice our services in the name of helping. Instead, we should charge our worth and intentionally offer a few sliding scale or pro bono spots.

Of course, this isn’t a system-wide fix, but it allows therapists to stay financially stable while still making space for clients who can’t afford full fees. More importantly, it stops funneling labor into a system that relies on therapists accepting unsustainable pay.

And I’m going to say the quiet part out loud: if we do this, things will get worse before they get better.

If enough therapists start walking away from exploitative systems, if they start refusing unsustainable insurance rates, if they turn down VC-backed jobs that don’t pay enough, access will suffer in the short term. Fewer therapists will take insurance. Clients who rely on those systems will struggle to find care. That’s real, and it’s painful.

But the alternative is worse.

Because if the field keeps going the way it is—burning out clinicians, underpaying new graduates, making private practice impossible to sustain—access won’t just get worse; it will collapse. Therapists will leave, new ones won’t enter, and the workforce shortage that insurers and companies claim to be solving will become a full-blown crisis.

That’s the real choice. Either access takes a hit now to force payors and companies to change the way they reimburse care and make therapy a sustainable career, or we keep pretending things can go on like this until there aren’t enough therapists left to provide care at all.

The post The Venture Capitalist Playbook Is Breaking Therapy appeared first on Psychotherapy Networker.

]]>